Talk:Rob Bell/Archive 2

Controversy section; Basileias, Henrybish and Lyonscc
I'm not sure letting Egalitarian and Complementarian issues of Mars Hill Church spill into the article is proper. One of the sentence openers "Accusations include..." At this point, I don't see why the internal politics of Mars Hill Church belongs in the Bell article. Also, a reference from a blog, "First of all, if this story is accurate, then Bell’s change was due at least in part to his reading William Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals." Opening up with "...if this is accurate..." doesn't sound very factual. Anything can be put out on a blog. And besides, this is all from years ago. Basileias (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Basileias, this is entirely unreasonable. Why are you so intent on preventing any criticism of Rob Bell. I had a look at the history and see that you have a track record for preventing criticism of Rob Bell. This is totally biased and should not be tolerated at Wikipedia. What is the point in having a Controversy section if you are so intent of removing anything that may reflect badly on Mr Rob Bell? This is not impartial. You are entirely within your rights to cite a response/opposing view to the criticisms but it is outright unfair censorship to keep removing it - especially since it is only 2 lines! You keep citing various reasons that are invalid and coming up with new ones when point out that they are senseless. Your latest 'this is all from years ago' is ridiculous - most of the stuff on Wikipedia is from years ago, history is in the past in case you were not aware, this is no reason not to include it in an article. The term 'if this is accurate' in one of the blog posts shows responsible 2nd hand reporting of events so the reader can decide for themselves whether it is true. And the other article does not claim 'if this is accurate' but contains 1st hand witness information. The 2 lines I wrote did not construe a biased view on the matter but just stated that 'Accusations include...' The fact that I refer to the witness information as an 'accusation' rather than a 'fact' demonstrates that I am reporting in an impartial manner.

To conclude, if you continue to exercise undue censorship I will consider taking further action as you are suppressing valid controversy concerning Rob Bell from readers. Henrybish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your accusation is:


 * "I had a look at the history and see that you have a track record for preventing criticism of Rob Bell.


 * I'm giving you some time to present you evidence for this accusation. If you cannot, then I will revert your edit. Egalitarian and Complementarian issues of Mars Hill Church shouldn't litter this article. Basileias (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia:Reliable_sources


 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Basileias (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Basileias, I am under no obligation to play by your personal rules that you wish to subject me to. Your challenge it totally irrelevant to whether the information I have added to the article is warranted. However, I will give you a truthful answer to your challenge if you address my challenge:

1) Explain why your challenge has any bearing on whether those two lines with the corresponding references that I added to the article are false.

2) You said as your latest reason for disallowing my 2 lines that: Egalitarian and Complementarian issues of Mars Hill Church shouldn't litter this article Please explain where else in this article you find egalitarian and complementarian issues are unduly littering the article. The lines I added are the only 2 solitary lines on the topic!

3) Explain why you keep changing your reasons as to why the 2 lines should not be added.

If you answer my challenge fully and truthfully I will happily give you a truthful answer to your challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. that Wikipedia quote that you listed is not pertinent because as I have already noted - I carefully worded the two lines to indicate that it was an 'accusation' rather than established 'fact'. Readers have a right to know what things some of the critics of Rob Bell are saying. Just because a critic says something does not make it a fact. Let the reader decide. Mars Hill Church (Driscoll) is a very prominent voice in evangelicalism today and so that reference deserves to be heard, especially since it contains witness information and the perspective of a leading Bible Scholar Wayne Grudem. As for Denny Burk he is a prominent conservative blogger and has authority on gender issues as he was editor of CBMW's journal. These voices are noteworthy enough to be heard, regardless of whether one may agree/disagree with the accusation - one need only read the witness information and decide for themselves. If Rob Bell or another prominent enough source has a response then please post it. But don't censor valid perspectives on Rob Bell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybish (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You accused me of a track record for preventing criticism of Rob Bell. You really need to back that with evidence.


 * We don't want to be placing accusations in articles. Accusations in religious circles often amount to hearsay. Also, the source is suspect because all participate have a vested interest in promoting one side. They're not neutral sources. There is also wiki rules that discourage information from blogs and it's from the reasons I just mentioned. I'm sorry this has gone bad. Basileias (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You stated, "I had a look at the history and see that you have a track record for preventing criticism of Rob Bell." Of this I've asked for evidence and you haven't been able to support it.

You also stated, "Basileis, I have been reasonable to you, if this revision is still deleted then I will pursue this further."

Threats aren't appreciated, nor are wild accusations of other editors. Also, it puts into question your objectivity. Critical information from blogs is discourage because we're dealing with "alleged" things. This is reaelly an issue for the Church.

I don't desire to edit war but I hope you do pursue with with whatever action because I think your behavior and your wild accusations should result in disciplinary action if you can't behave like an adult.

The wiki policy is clear,

''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.''

You still have blogs as a source. Basileias (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Basileias, I have said I am happy to give you a truthful answer to your challenge if you answered my 3 questions which you still have not. If I have been unfair to you I will happily say so. The decision is in your hands, I am still willing to answer.

The two articles I linked to are not wild accusations - do you have any evidence that they are? If not then that is a wild accusation. If you do have evidence that those sources are untrue and that the witnesses are being untruthful then you are free to add to the article and cite it, I will not challenge it as Wikipedia should allow both critics and supporters to cite evidence. I would actually very much like to see Rob Bell make a response to this issue as one of the blogs I initially linked to also expressed. But it is not up to me, if he responds I would definitely add it to the article.

Regarding the sources I used, note that the WIki rules do not disallow blogs/self-published media entirely - they just say that they are largely not acceptable. In this instance both articles I cite are prominent and responsible sources in the evangelical world - whether or not one agrees with them. Anyone who knows anything about the gender debate will have heard of CBMW as the leading complementarian organization and most of the evangelical world knows of Driscoll and Mars Hill. These are therefore some of the most prominent critics and thus deserve citation. This is further backed up by the fact that the sources are not merely speculation or opinion but contain direct quotation from witnesses and from from Wayne Grudem himself on the matter. This is exactly the kind of first hand information that Wiki pages should be made up of. Plus as I have said I have made it clear that these are allegations rather than portraying them as established fact.

Also, if you want to apply Wiki rules in such a way then why are you only picking on the 2 lines I wrote? Have you not seen the rest of the citations in the article, they also contain link to blogs but for some reason you only picked on my 2 lines. And what about the rest of Wikipedia? I wonder if this is because you have vested interest in the issue at stake? The fact is that it is not always inappropriate to cite a blog which is why the rules do not categorically prohibit it but say 'largely unacceptable'.

So for these reasons and others I am ready to take this further as I believe Wikipedia would not apply those rules in the inconsistent and unfair manner in which you wish to censor this information. --Henrybish (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To place requirements on me for you to give the reasons for your accusation of me is just weird. That would never be a way to do things anywhere else. And frankly you repeated it in your last post, without backing, again.


 * Per wiki policy information on living persons is not to come from blogs, especially critical. Information from blogs is often one sided and truthfulness can often be in question. What do you not understand about,are largely not acceptable? Whether Bell responds to any of this is largely non of our business to be dissecting here.


 * "Also, if you want to apply Wiki rules in such a way then why are you only picking on the 2 lines I wrote?"


 * This is a good point, all blog information should be removed from the controversy section. But as you just demonstrated, people like you who want to add information to the controversy section prove to often be combative for some strange reason and that information has to come from "blogs". Basileias (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure how the HenryBish material made it back in, but it is definitely not within Wiki guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons. Blog-sourced contentious material is not allowed in biographies, and Wiki takes great care in this particular type of article in erring on the side of too little information than in chronicling every potential axe to grind with living persons.  As for expecting Bell to respond to blog posts, that is not a reasonable expectation, as the burden of proof is not upon his shoulders.--Lyonscc (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He inserted it back in. His mission here is to have this in the article. Basileias (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyonscc, you have just ignored the entire conversation I have had with Basileias on this. I have made fair points and they still stand. Wikipedia is filled with references to blogs and the rules do not disallow them altogether but just say 'largely unacceptable'. And why have you singled my bit rather than all the other refs in the article? You are inconsistent in your misapplication of the rules. To clarify, since you seem to be unaware of the above conversation, please note the following:

1) Wiki does not disallow blog/self-published media refs altogether. 

2) The refs I have used contain witness information - it is not just some person's opinion being expressed in the blog. 

3) The refs are both from very well known and notable sources (CBMW and Resurgence/Mars Hill) that make this criticism major enough to deserve a mention. 

4) I have carefully worded it so that it is presented as an allegation rather than as fact. 

If you ignore these facts and remove the valuable contribution I have made to the article again I will take this further.--Henrybish (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anything on a blog is an opinion. Allegations are not relevant to the article. Basileias (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Basileias, you continue to ignore my points and so I will now take this further. Think about how ridiculous your application of the rules is:

if a famous person said something in their own personal blog you would not allow it to be referenced just because it is a blog!

That is why the Wiki rules DO NOT disallow blog references entirely. What don't you understand about this? And why are you incessant on deleting just this one piece of the article instead of the others that also use blog refs? Sounds like you have vested interest here, this is unfair censorship. I will now contact WIkipedia.--Henrybish (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Henrybish - I am a long-time experienced editor on Wiki, and I have read your arguments, but they do not mesh with Wikipedia policy. Please read the wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living Persons.  From this policy (which is more stringent:

"''Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."


 * Those are not my words - those are in the biography policy. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to formally ask for a second opinion, or to take this to arbitration.  However, as is the case with all such contentious material on biography pages, that material must stay off of the article page until the arbitration is completed.  If you insist in reinserting it, you will be reported for violation of the WP:TRR.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyonscc, thanks for highlighting that other Wikipedia policy, I was not aware of it. However, having had a look at it I notice that the very next line following the bit you quoted says this:

"Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals"

Now if you are familiar with the gender debate in the church you will know that CBMW (from whose website one of my sources comes from) is one of the most prominent voices in this field. It is true that they hold a very different view than Rob Bell, but this does not mean that they are untrustworthy. Opposing views deserve to be heard if they are from prominent enough sources (see below). Here are some other quotes from Wiki's rules:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" Again, CBMW specialize in reporting on the gender debate in the church. See here for what they do: http://www.cbmw.org/Why-We-Exist#building

Also from Wiki's rules:

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format."

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" So these would validate expressing Wayne Grudem's own view of Rob Bell's conduct since he was personally involved and is a leading evangelical.

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." I have not devoted disproportionate space to the matter.

Wouldn't you agree that I am within Wiki's rules?--Henrybish (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Henrybish, FWIW I am a complimentarian and not an egalitarian, so I do understand your concerns. At the same time, I've come to respect Wikipedia's policies in that for every time I wish I could insert certain material into articles, there are probably ten times I'm glad those same policies protect the pages from folks wanting to put their own "spin" in.  In the case of complimentarianism/egalatarianism (along with numerous other theological divides, such as with Calvinist/Wesleyan divides), unless a religious figure is outspoken in a broad segment of sources on an esoteric topic like this one, it does not rise to the level of notability for inclusion (which is dealt with in some other Wikipedia policies which basically say "even if something has a reliable source, if it's not notable, it shouldn't be included).  [Side note: A couple of years ago, a number of editors and I had to stop a new editor from going through all of the Christian figures in Wikipedia and labeling them either "Calvinist" or "heretical".  I believe one of those went to third-party opinion or arbitration, and it was determined that unless the speaker was outspoken in his Calvinism/Arminianism, it was not notable.]


 * Now - to deal with your policy questions:


 * Where the policy says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" in BLP's, what this is saying is that you can quote Wayne Grudem's blog in an article about Wayne Grudem (if it is notable for inclusion). It is not saying that you can quote Wayne Grudem's self-published material in an article on Rob Bell.


 * Where the policy says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", this has not been broadly applied in BLP's - particularly ones of religious or political figures (where much of the Wiki abuse comes about). Rather, this tends to be more broadly allowed in historical and scientific articles - and even then on matters that are not incredibly contentious or non-notable.


 * Where the policy says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals", this is referring to news organizations like the NYT, Washington Post, National Review, etc. As I've looked through the site you referenced, even if it might be respectable within a niche audience, it would not be considered 'verifiable' in the case of a BLP of a religious figure, unless he (Bell) was being interviewed by it.


 * Typically, the manner in which things like this might get added to an article is to post drafts on the talk page, discuss them, and then - if agreement can't be reached - to ask for a third-opinion (here's a link to that process), a Request for Comments ( link and if that does not work, arbitration ( link).  I've been through arbitration once (it was 6 months long, and was between me and some homosexual editors who were attempting to make Rick Warren look like a campaigning homophobe, for his endorsement of Prop 8).  It is a fair process, but it can be lengthy (though usually a week or two is normal).


 * Overall, though, in my several years as an editor on Wikipedia, the sources you've cited would not rise to the level of verifiability for a BLP, nor would this particular topic (Rob Bell's egalatarianism) rise to a level of notability for inclusion.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

External links section
I removed the following ELs because of various duplication, WP:EL, and relevance problems. Some of them might be appropriate as inline references (some clearly are not), though, so I am pasting them here (as they were) in case anyone wants to work them into the article:


 * Interview with Rob Bell about "Drops Like Stars" tour by ReadTheSpirit.com
 * Premier.tv UK Interview with Rob Bell
 * Mars Hill Bible Church
 * NOOMA
 * beliefnet.com interview with Rob Bell
 * Everything is Spiritual
 * gods aren't angry tour
 * Sex God Tour
 * Jesus Wants to Save Christians
 * Time Magazine: "The Hipper-Than-Thou Pastor"
 * "Rob Bell Likes His Art Chocolate" - Patrol Magazine interview with Rob Bell
 * "An Interview with Rob Bell" - The Ooze
 * "Rob Bell on Sex, God, and Sex Gods" - The Wittenburg Door
 * Interview with Rob Bell on the power of preaching and new media by ReadTheSpirit.com

Novaseminary (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section
I have added a controversy section back in the article because this new book Rob has coming out is making national news now, and should not be ignored. I would love more links, I know that they're out there, I just don't have enough time to search for them. Thanks all. ps. Sorry about all the edits. Johnandrus (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See "Love Wins" below. BLP's should, generally, not have "Controvery" sections, but the material should be worked into the body of the article.  Once the new book is released, it should probably have a short paragraph in the body of the article.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms
Rob Bell has seen a lot of criticisms from a lot of sources. Many of those are probably people who don't fully understand what he is trying to do. But the article makes it seem as though those are the only sort of criticisms he has received. His scathing rebuke (though followed by a happy "i luv everybody & ur next lol") isn't particularly a good way to end the "criticism" section 'cause it pretty much assumes that all his critics are self-seeking hate-mongering vicious nutjobs. Not very NPOV.

Is there any way an editor could expand the criticisms section so that it doesn't overwhelmingly make Rob look like a hero? We obviously don't want to take a point of view attacking Rob, but the criticisms section is anything but neutral right now. Rather than just paraphrasing a few of the more confused critics and labeling them as "vicious" (which is what that quote de facto does), why doesn't somebody add more reasoned criticisms - by people who say stuff more like "We understand what Rob Bell is trying to do but in his attempts he is creating a new gospel" - stuff like that. Then quote his responses. Just don't select only the criticisms that he most soundly defeats, you know? 199.88.20.8 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the misconceptions with biography pages in Wikipedia is that they should be the repository of any and all quibbles people have with the subject (see WP:BLP). (In many cases, this seems to stem from some sort of desire to 'warn' people about the subject, which in itself is a root of WP:NPOV.) Generally, though, the criticism section should stick to criticisms which deal with the subject's notability.  Most of Bell's sources of criticism tent to be blog-sourced or self-published, which violates WP:BLP and WP:V, and/or they tend to misrepresent what Bell has said (when taken in context) creating straw-man or guilt-by-association fallacies, or requiring laying out systematic connections on the Wiki page (which is a violation of WP:NOR).  Additionally, when dealing with religious figures, 90% of the people in the world will disagree with a person's stance for one reason or another - For instance, Bell is not a Calvinist, so to lay out all of the criticisms against him for not holding to the TULIP isn't really helpful or encyclopedic.


 * Having gone back and forth over what to include and what to leave out, the editors have tried to leave in the most commonly criticized statements juxtaposed with the greater context for the purpose of maintaining WP:NPOV. Based on web stats, the most criticized comments have involved his section on the Virgin Mary in Velvet Elvis, his statement about all truth being God's, no matter where it is found (also in VE), his comment about Christianity being "Eastern" in Christianity Today, and his comments some have interpreted as being against Sola Scriptura in VE.--Lyonscc (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a massive overhaul for grammar and linguistic style. it reads very poorly. -mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.165.40 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the "Criticism" section? Someone has deleted it in its entirety. Anybody able to unscrub it? (26 Mar 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormbuffalo (talk • contribs) 21:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'Eastern religion' criticism
In reading the criticism section as it now stands, the second paragraph on 'Eastern religion' doesn't seem to fit at all. It's not a criticism (as I read it), yet it doesn't seem to flow from the first para. Are there reasons I shouldn't move that para to a different part of the article? 60.241.239.146 (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the entire "Eastern Religion" criticism should probably be removed, as its inclusion was initially an ad homenim criticism to suggest that Bell supports New Age, Asian, Hindu and other Eastern religions. Some folks were insistent on keeping the criticism, so the second sentence was added (based on numerous comments by Bell in sermons, and his 2003 trip to Israel and Turkey with VanderLaan) to keep a WP:NPOV.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone has no idea what the term "ad homenim (sic)" means. Ad hominem arguments are the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. Pointing out in a criticism section that Rob Bell has made arguments in support of eastern religions is a fact not an ad hominem fallacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.121.2 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about Ad hominem attacks, but wrong about Eastern religions. Bell didn't make arguments in support of eastern religions, he talked about seeing Christianity as an eastern religion (i.e. not as a western, white religion, but with a semitic source). Please try and read quotes objectively. Casaubonian (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"We're rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life. Legal metaphors for faith don't deliver a way of life." Sounds to me like Bell is contrasting "Eastern = way of life" with "Legal metaphors for faith." Thus he means Eastern in the Christian sense of Semitic & Greek wholistic faith vs. Latin guilt/acquital theology. Jakob3 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this is even still in the article. I'd recommend striking it, since it doesn't seem to add anything to the article, and its inclusion was on the part of critics who wanted to argue Bell was supporting Transcendental Meditation.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Love Wins
Bell's new book, Love Wins, will be released on March 29, and there is some blog-fueled controversy in advance of the release. It makes sense to wait until the actual content of the book has been made public before including information from/about it in the main article. And then, the text of the addition should be worked out here and agreed to on the talk page, since this is likely to fuel all sorts of hyperbolic discussion.--Lyonscc (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The controversy over the new book is already being reported in The New York Times, CNN, and many other reliable sources, so I don't think there is any reason to delay or exclude an appropriate mention of it. I'd think a sentence or two ought to be added now, mentioning the new book and the pre-publication controversy as reported in such reliable sources; this can be updated as appropriate. Incidentally, the book's release date has been moved up to March 15.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see a review of the WP:BLP is going to be needed.


 * Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
 * If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article...


 * I don't see how this is notable at this time. It's not a national controversy and it's a yet to be released book. Basileias (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to say this isn't national. I'm not from Michigan or any state that borders Michigan and I've heard a lot of play on this subject.  As people have already pointed out, this has gotten coverage on CNN, the New York Times, and the Huffington Post.  It doesn't get more national than that. 173.31.136.19 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, any controversy is based on hearsay, since the book has not been released. It does not make sense, particularly in light of WP:BLP, to insert general information about it, since the object of controversy is not yet  verifiable until publication has occurred.  This is three weeks' away, and getting the information right (what Bell claims in the book and criticism of his actual claims) is the most important test for inclusion.  It does not seem urgent to add in criticism, when we do not yet know if it is targeting actual claims made by Bell.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, you are the only one taking that stance. Everyone else is saying it's relevant.  Links that were provided were from people who had actually read the book, not just hearsay.  It's flat out wrong that it's not included.  Also, it's not weeks away.  The book is on sale in 5 days. 173.31.136.19 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, at this point we have two editors suggesting it ought to be added now, and two editors suggesting that we wait for the book's publication. And yes, as of Tuesday, the book's date of publication has been moved up from 3/29/11 to 3/15/11 (which makes my point even more valid).  It does not make any sense, in light of WP:BLP, to include criticism of excerpts from the book before the book is actually available for public consumption.  As has been seen in the past with Bell (ex. the virgin birth in Velvet Elvis), the out-of-context quotation of his writing is used as fodder for criticism, when the full context paints a completely different picture.  Right now, the critics are reacting to the publisher's marketing materials, not the actual book, itself.  For example, there are critics who have declared (w/o reading the book) that Bell is a "Universalist" (with further implication that this is the same as "Pluralism"), which contradict what a few readers w/ advance copies of the book say is actually written in it (see "Rob Bell is not a Universalist and I actually READ Love Wins").  Waiting until the book has come out and a non-WP:POV addition is drafted for the article is well within the spirit of the wiki policy for Biographies of Living Persons.--Lyonscc (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also a couple questions I have.
 * Does a critique of the book belong here? or it's own article?
 * Does a religious theological argument(s), of which there many, belong in this biography?
 * Basileias (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This book will probably deserve its own article, with a single sentence in the bio page referencing it. That will keep the two separated, and allow expounding more on the book without putting undue focus on it in the BLP.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lyonscc. Kevinmon•talk•trib 04:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you guys still trying to hold out? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA Johnandrus (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See Lyonscc's most recent comment and request below. Also, what are we supposed to do with the video? Basileias (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, the book is out. It's time to include something in this article about its release and the controversy, which continues to be covered in mainstream publications; Google News this morning turns up very recent coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, USA Today, and a useful summary at MLive.com (The Grand Rapids Press). And plenty more. This is a notable controversy and a succinct, neutral description of it belongs in the article.  To be clear, Wikipedia's role here is not to argue about whether Rob Bell is a universalist or not; it is to report accurately, and based on reliable sources, that his new book has provoked a notable controversy, which started even before the book was published and has continued,  in both religious and mainstream secular media, with some commentators praising the book, while others assert that it is heterodox and promotes universalist ideology. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What Language would you propose, and where to add it?--Lyonscc (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Front page article on Fox News on the book and with this and the other links included by Arxiloxos, it appears that to me (someone who had never heard of Mr Bell before this AM) that criticism of Bell is "national news" and thus not of the "minority fringe" that the loyal editors of this page seem to be trying to prevent. Not trying to start a flame war, but as an aside, I read the entire Talk section (yes, I have nothing to do) before adding this comment and I guess I'm kind of wondering what some of you are so afraid of about allowing both sides of the argument to be shown on Mr Bell's page.  Obviously you want to keep the crazies and those with an axe to grind from completely corrupting a Wiki page, and I have had my own experience with that on pages that I try and shepherd, but are we really striving to make all biographical pages of the bland variety that ONLY says He was born, lived, and died.  The end?  Mr Bell is a controversial and a now national figure - this is a part of who he is and thus shouldn't his Wiki page reflect this?  My 2 cents.  Yours -Ckruschke (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we shouldn't add anything about "Love Wins" to the article. Now that it is published (Harper Collins has said that not all distributors had received it, as of last Friday), I think we should add something about it to the article (though the book, itself, probably deserves an article of its own).  My previous comment was simply asking for someone to draft a proposal and post it here, so that we can agree on what should be written.--Lyonscc (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I took some time to attempt a draft, but having a hard time making something work. Good thing paper is a thing of the past or I'd have a full waste basket now. Looking at articles like Joel Osteen, Jack T. Chick, William P. Young, Rick Warren, Brian McLaren or even Bart D. Ehrman, there hasn't been a huge precedent set to insert a lot of information about one of their "popular" books. That's probably because it generally goes against the BLP. Any other article examples you can think of (or anyone) to look at? Basileias (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a much bigger story than just "Love Wins". The interviews that Bell is giving are about doctrine, not about his book.  Of course, he could be doing all of the interviews to continue to stir controversy and sell more books. 63.224.180.238 (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the 'doctrinal' points made in the interview are answers to questions raised in the book or by critics: "Are you a universalist?" (Answer: No), "Do you believe in hell?" (Answer: Yes, it is real today and has implications in the future), and "What do you believe about hell?" (Answer: Too many Christian's theology is based upon a theology of "evacuation", whereas Jesus tells us how we live today is important.  It is not about "there" and "then", but "here" and "now", and what happens "now" has implications in the future, but we can't say for certain exactly what happens after death.)--Lyonscc (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your last point is the reason that he is so controversial to many in the Christian world. Part of the basic definition of Universalism is the belief that "I'm good, you're good, can't we all just get along" and this is what Mr Bell SEEMS to be speaking for. Also he is only partially correct in his poing that Jesus tells us how we live today is important because he's either consciously or unconsciously overlooking the fact that Jesus also said that you don't make it to Heaven on works, you are saved through grace and giving you life to Him. How you live is thus an outward reflection of your inward devotion. You can live an absolutely pure life, helping everyone, never having an evil thought, and yet Jesus Himself says that you will still not go to Heaven. Obviously we need to make sure that really overboard non-NPOV comments are not posted on this page, but the page should also reflect the national controversy his words/writings have rightly fostered. Again, not an expert and don't have an axe to grind, just my 2 cents. Thanks Ckruschke (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Lyonscc: Are you a member of his church?  This is really weird that you are arguing against putting this in his article.  I would guess 80-90% of the people coming to his page right now are people wanting to read about this issue.  It's absolutely ridiculous that it's not already on there.  It's being talked about still on a national stage, with a new article in Forbes on Friday (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/24/general-us-rel-hell-no_8372485.html) and it's own thread at Project Reason, an atheist website. (http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/whos_in_hell_pastors_book_sparks_eternal_debate/)  We need someone to step up and add this immediately.  63.224.180.238 (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think we've officially come to the end of the polite debate. Remember - Wikipedia isn't the end of the world... How about I draft something up and throw it up for comment. I'll add it as a new Talk section as this one is getting pretty long. Ckruschke (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Love Wins Controversy - Draft Insertion
All - Here is the draft that I've crafted on the Love Wins criticsm and debate:


 * ==Controversy==
 * Despite Bell’s consistent words to the contrary, there continues to be controversy surrounding Bell’s positions that his theological positions equate to a Universalist stance. Bell’s most recent book, Love Wins, has only furthered this talk by challenging orthodox Christianity’s belief’s of Heaven and Hell with text from the book such as (t)his (not everyone goes to Heaven) is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear and that Bell believes that death doesn't cut off the ability to repent and he sees no infinite, eternal torment for things (people) did in their few finite years of life.      Ultimately, mainstream evangelicals find this position to be incompatible with scripture, while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about traditional beliefs.

Also per previous Talk comments, it appears that the entire "Criticsm/Controversy" section has disappeared. While I agree with Lyonscc that Wikipedia shouldn't be a "repository of any and all quibbles", having NONE of the now-mainstream criticsm that Bell has engendered denies the person that he actually is (similarly you would EXPECT to see something on the whole Monica Lewinsky thing on Bill Clinton's page and if it wasn't, you'd wonder about the NPOV of the page - and no I'm not equating Bill to Bell, just using it as an example). I've therefore added this as a new section heading to include the book debate. My suggestion is that the new section goes below the book section as it will undoubtably refer back to the books. I'm not married to the above text so please feel free to critique, but I've tried to make this as fair as possible. Of course I'm not perfect, so I'm assuming there will be (multiple) errors. Ckruschke (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * No, the "Criticsm/Controversy" section just didn't disappear. User Henrybish, who saw an egalitarian gender conspiracy in everything and whose way of handling things was to edit war and make wild accusations, brought the attention of dispute resolution editors. They gave Henrybish an unflattering assessment of his conduct and renamed the section to "Beliefs" after review. Basileias (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposed new section won't do at all - it is far to vague. We would need specific statements from notable critics, preferably responding to specific statements he has made. And we certainly can't have the phrase "Despite Bell’s consistent words to the contrary..." StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this:
 * In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that the idea that not everybody goes to heaven is "is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." and that there is no "finite, eternal torment for things (people) did in their few finite years of life." However, Bell denies that he is a universalist, and Richard Mouw has said the book was "well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity."
 * I'm still trying to find some reliable criticism. The NYT said that Mohler suggested Bell was "toying with heresy", but Mohler doesn't use those words. StAnselm (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'd like to have seen some examples of other article for situations similar, I like what StAnselm has started to draft. I think that would fit in the "Other projects" section. FWIW, I'm running into the same wall it looks like you're running into (meaning trying to create a good draft). Basileias (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the honest collaboration. It is refreshing on Wikipedia.  Also thank you for the history lesson on the page...
 * I also think that what StAnselm has done is really good. One suggestion I would make is to add a little bit more of the "this is what the other side thinks" because although the Richard Mouw reference is good, he's in the same "reform" camp as Bell and thus not a good source to reflect the criticism that is surrounding Bell.  Although I (obviously) did a poor job writing something up, I completely read all the articles that people had pasted above and thus included them as references in my draft (to further the "it isn't just one guy saying this" thought) and there is a number of good quotes from Christian leaders that I think would highlight that there is a considerable faction that feel Bell is taking an incorrect path. Ckruschke (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I'm not sure it qualifies as reliable source since it is a blog but the Kevin DeYoung review of the book is what touched off a lot of the controversy and was quoted in many traditional media outlets. (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/) Martin Bashir quoted from the review in his MSNBC interview with Rob Bell.  It may be worth including some quotes from this review.  Warfieldian (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The blog piece is about the book and this article is about Bell. Also, I don't think that's the piece that started it all, but if one blog source is permitted then that will later be used as leverage by someone else, "hey, you let a quote from that blog in, why not this other blog!?" Basileias (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we need to expand the new "beliefs" section. Bell is on the cover of next week's Time magazine with the headline "Is Hell Dead?" http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html  By the way, this article is packed with reliable quotes.Johnandrus(talk) 15:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2065080,00.html#ixzz1JZD95RhW


 * I agree that we should probably include the Time article, and I like the tone of the draft above. Having read the book now, I would alter the draft slightly:


 * In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."(p. vii) In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."(p. 111)  However, Bell denies that he is a universalist, but that he is arguing for leaving room for doubt, and that Love Wins "is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude."


 * This edit is more accurate, because (as the Time article reiterates) Bell's argument is not so much against the traditional view of hell as it is about traditionalist certitude and primacy in their treatment of hell. I also agree that we should leave blog reviews out of this article.--Lyonscc (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that your rewrite better captures Bell's point of view - really helps that someone has actually read the book. However, you've left out everyone else's point of view.  To continue to maintain the NPOV of this subject page, we have to include the other side of the story - which has been the continuing "complaint" on this Talk page from various editors. Good or bad, Bell does not live in a vacuum and this page needs to reflect that to be honest. Ckruschke (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Having lived through a six-month arbitration on the Rick Warren article in 2009, where there was a strong motivation by the gay community to use his article to include the entire debate over California Proposition 8 and include all of the voices speaking against his position, I agree that the current controversy with Bell should be mentioned, but that it not be fully explored and elaborated on. See the last two paragraphs of Rick Warren's Political and social views, where the Prop 8 controversy external to Warren was boiled down to "After the measure passed, Warren's church and others were targeted by protesters", and the beliefnet followup controversy gave a general description of the criticism and Warren's response. And it took 6 months of arbitration (and about 8 talk-pages of novella length) to reach that conclusion. What the arbitrators kept emphasizing was that in a WP:BLP, the article is about the individual, that rebuttal of their views is not relevant to the biography page, that criticism/controversy sections are highly discouraged, and that any criticism included to which they responded should include their response.

So, perhaps a starting point might be:


 * In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."(p. vii) In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."(p. 111)  At the time of the books' publication, some prominent  Reformed church figures accused Bell of heresy in espousing the UR view.  Bell denied that he was a universalist, but that he was arguing for leaving room for doubt, and that Love Wins "is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude."

It notes the primary source of controversy (the UR view), but does not delve into the debate, itself (which is not about Bell).--Lyonscc (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying and the prior Warren reference, but all I have to say is that I am in 100% disagreement. Throughout this page Bell is being treated as if he lives in a vacuum, only voicing a point of view from Bell's side, rather than showing Bell as the controversial figure that he is - "the other side of the argument" is never mentioned. If you were to visit the pages for Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Pete Rose, Sarah Palin, et al, they all reflect the controversy that these people's actions/words provoke - because this is who they are (right or wrong) and Bell's should as well (even if he is "slightly" less controversial than Rush). Part of NPOV is balencing the POV - by definition, it isn't neutral if it's one-sided.
 * However, as Wikipedia is my hobby and not my life, I will leave my argument as is and not block your insertion. Thanks for hearing me out and for the continued discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I am totally open to suggestions for altering this, if you have them. I would also note that some of the past points of controversy (like the Virgin Birth debate in Velvet Elvis) were addressed in the article, but have been removed over time, with some of those removals initiated by Bell critics because they wanted the issues inserted without Bell's response to them.  In the currently proposed edit, the controversy is noted.  What would you have included that is not there?--Lyonscc (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You know what, I just re-read your most recent draft and it looks like I missed part of it and we are alot closer than I thought. Therefore I'd be really happy with this or something similar (bold is my addition):
 * In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."(p. vii) In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."(p. 111)
 * At the time of the books' publication, some prominent Reformed church figures accused Bell of heresy in espousing the UR view. Bell denied that he was a universalist, but that he was arguing for leaving room for doubt, and that Love Wins "is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude." However, mainstream evangelicals see this "doubt" as incompatible with scripture, while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about traditional beliefs.  
 * I liked this dichotomy from my draft and I thought it did a good job of explaining some of the controversy - "traditionalists" are appalled at what Bell (and his "ilk") stand for while "modernists" see Bell's line of thinking as a natural evolution of Christian thought and view those that espose the Bible as "end all, beat all truth" as hopelessly backward. What do you think? Need tweaking? I don't know where to add them, but it also seems that with the preponderance of talk out there in the mainstream press, we could put a few more links in (maybe you could grab some of them that I had marked in my draft. However, this is just a suggestion.Ckruschke (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I could go with something like that. I would probably make a few minor tweaks:


 * Some evangelicals see this "doubt" as incompatible with scripture, while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about some traditional interpretations of scripture. 


 * I removed the "however" (since it seems too argumentative, rather than simply contrasting) and "mainstream" (since it is a rather vague term when applied to evangelicals, who are rather diverse in their makeup). I also noted that the counterpoint between the sets of evangelicals is not over Scripture, itself, but of interpretation of Scripture.  Bell's argument in Love Wins isn't for a specific belief, but for allowing epistemic humility in some areas, and the criticism back-and-forth has been more over epistemic closure vs. epistemic humility (which I think my tweaks reflect).  What do you think?--Lyonscc (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Where was "doubt" used in any of the artices? I looked at the last three articles and found this funny line..."For obvious reasons, I take a personal interest in news of the underworld. I will be packing my flame-retardant pajamas for my final journey, and I am counting on a long stay, surrounded by lifelong friends and many, many fascinating writers and journalists. [Message to Calvinists; Rob Bell didn't state that!] OK...that was off topic. :-}


 * Maybe change "doubt" to "uncertainty" or something like that. Since a theme from the book seems to be questioning the certitude being propagated that the Bible has given all the exact facts about life after death down to every detail. Other then that, I think it's a good write up. Basileias (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm good with either wording. I'm also good with the insertion. Thanks for the collaboration! Ckruschke (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ok - I moved the new edit out to the main page. I also removed the stub from the "Next Billy Graham" response to criticism - it was part of the past Criticism/Controversy section and no longer made sense in the scope of the article.

Thanks everybody for the collaboration!--Lyonscc (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Viper Room/Livestream from July 2012
Is Livestream considered a Verifiable Source? There is no way to fast forward/reverse through the video, and no transcript available. I removed a supposed addition from this source this afternoon, as it was a characterization of what Bell supposedly said (which is considered Original Research) and not a direct quote. There has been a great deal of controversy in the past, when it comes to videos as verifiable sources (the Rick Warren article had this issue, until we found an official transcript of a video, which ended the dispute). Journalist - can you find a transcript of this event?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion from the Rick Warren thread on the use of livestream - but I recall that one of the reasons it can't be used as a Verifiable Source is because (a) you can't point to time stamps (which would allow people to verify the actual quote); and (b) you can't point to a transcript (which would also allow verification of the quoted material). Please find a transcript of the Viper Room talk, so that we can evaluate its potential inclusion.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

'Stronger'
The introduction to this article says Bell "is currently working with former Lost producer Carlton Cuse on a television series," but the 'Stronger' section says "ultimately, Bell and Cuse were unable to get approval to shoot a pilot for Stronger." As far as I can tell, the concept was dropped a couple of years ago. The introduction should be amended, unless anyone knows something I don't about the future of the production? Sadiemonster (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Whoever edited the body probably didn't look at the lede. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Recent Beliefs edit
A John Piper has been inserted into an edit that was recently agreed on. The problem is, its not sourced and I don't think the source that follows even backs it.

''At the time of the books' publication, some prominent reformed church figures, such as John Piper, accused Bell of heresy in espousing the UR view. Bell denied that he was a universalist..."'' Basileias (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed the edit by putting in the correct Wiki link. Not sure who put in Piper as the source to begin with.  I remember in the articles I originally sourced at the beginning of the Love Wins edit discussion that were "several", but today I don't remember who they were.  Anyway, I "reverted" the edit to the previous version. Maybe someone can go in and reference specific folks and get rid of the Smackbot question of "Who?". Ckruschke (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I believe Al Mohler is mentioned in the Time article that is already a cited source, and he's SBC (which is Reformed). It is Mohler, Piper, MacArthur, Kevin DeYoung and Justin Taylor who were the most outspoken, and Mohler is already sourced (whereas the others are all blog sourced), so why not go with him?--Lyonscc (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Al Mohler I think is significant. Maybe something like "...President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Al Mohler..?" My only next question is, I probably could dig myself but someone more knowledgeable might be more appropriate, is Mohler reformed? I ask that because of this line "...some prominent reformed..." Basileias (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Officially, SBC is considered "Reformed", and the SBTS is definitely so. Some churches within the SBC are less so than others (like Saddleback in California).--Lyonscc (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mohler sounds good to me. Ckruschke (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Proposal...


 * In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell has stated that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as conscious, eternal torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it." At the time of the books' publication, some prominent reformed church figures like Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. accused Bell of heresy in espousing the UR view. Bell denied that he was a universalist, but that he was arguing for leaving room for uncertainty, and that Love Wins "is a case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude." 


 * One minor problem is Mohler didn't directly accuse Bell of "heresy" but more espousing a UR view. I think what we have is close enough, otherwise it could lead to a whole rewrite to get exact and to get here it took long enough time. This has it more clear what Mohlers view is, http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/01/universalism-as-a-lure-the-emerging-case-of-rob-bell/. If we needed an additional reference does this link violate the WP:BLP? Basileias (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would violate WP:BLP because it is a blog. Instead of "heresy", we could reword the sentence to be:


 * ''At the time of the books' publication, some prominent reformed church figures like Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. said Bell's book was "theologically disastrous" for not rejecting the UR view.

''


 * This eliminates the literal word "heresy" (since Mohler didn't say it), but still implies it via Mohler's actual words in the TIME article.--Lyonscc (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no objections or counter proposals, I say insert it. Basileias (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Question: Should Brian McLaren be included in a list and labeled as "evangelical", in the sentence, "Other evangelicals, such as Brian McLaren, Greg Boyd and Eugene Peterson, defended Bell's views."? The reason I ask is I believe most evangelicals would not consider McLaren to be one of them. - jsniessen


 * As long as you can provide a valid neutral source. Basileias (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are more experienced than I, but the entire quoted sentence is not sourced - so we don't really know if McLaren, Boyd, or Peterson did defend Bell, nor is the statement supported later in the paragraph. So while it may be 'sourceable', it isn't currently sourced, and thus perhaps the sentence should be removed entirely?  Anyway, even if a reference is inserted to support the contention, from what I know of and read about McLaren, he would not self-identify as an evangelical.  From a brief perusal of the Wikipedia page devoted to him he is referred to as "Post-evangelical" and identified with postmodern and progressive Christianity, so it seems internally inconsistent to refer to him as an evangelical in this article. - jsniessen 11 August 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.66.16 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Having both pondered and researched, I have found sources indicating both fellow emergent Brian McLaren and open theist Greg Boyd defended Bell in the Love Wins universalist controversy. Peterson's alleged defense is more problematic, since he endorsed the book, but in a follow-up interview with Timothy Dalrymple admits to not agreeing with everything Bell says.  His 'defense', if it is that is more a general defense that Bell's message deserves to be heard and an objection to the tone and motives of Bell's critics.  I plan to clarify the labels describing his defenders, properly source the above assertion, and propose eliminating Peterson from the list entirely. Jsniessen (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Boyd has also gone on record as not agreeing with everything Bell says. It was in one of his sermons, but that does not mean that he, or Peterson, should be removed from the list of supporters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But the list in question here isn't a list of general supporters as much as a list of defenders - here, those defending him against those who called his book theologically disastrous, specifically in his alleged views toward universalism. My main point is the list of defenders needs clarification and attribution, and my subpoint is my reading of the evidence I could find of Peterson's defense on that point is rather weak.   His defense is not of Bell's views, but his right to air his view as part of needed public discourse.  (e.g. "He may not be right.  But he’s doing something worth doing.")  That doesn't seem to be a defense of Bell's views.  Walter, perhaps you have something to bolster Peterson's inclusion other than the interview I found at:   http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/149653-eugene-peterson-would-jesus-condemn-rob-bell.html  Jsniessen (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rob Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110924054947/http://marshill.org:80/rob-bell/news/ to http://marshill.org/rob-bell/news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Designation as a pastor?
I'm not trying to start any theological quibbles here, but I'm wondering if it still makes sense to have Rob Bell listed as a "pastor" in the introductory line. He certainly did pastor a church in the past, but he hasn't been involved in any pastoral role anywhere since 2012 (as per all the sources listed in this article), and even on his own website he characterizes himself as "a bestselling author, international teacher, and highly sought after public speaker." Obviously, his own self-description isn't determinative for Wikipedia purposes, but I can't find anything withing past 4 years that would label him as a pastor of any sort. He just seems to be a straight forward motivational speaker with vaguely religious (though not necessarily even exclusively Christian) undertones.

Again, I'm not trying to start a theological argument a la whether he's a Christian or not. Just trying to think through whether he should be described as a pastor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.0.13 (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears your relevant concerns have been addressed by altering the description to "former pastor". Jsniessen (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)