reviews his latest book Love Wins: A book about Heaven, Hell and the fate of every person who has ever believed, and finds that no, he wasn't and yes he is. I think it's good to think about the questions Bell raises, because they go to the heart of several topics I'm interested in such as the nature of sin, the scope of salvation and the question of theodicy.
review by Kevin DeYoung, about as far from Bell on the ecclesiastical spectrum as you can get. In many ways this controversy highlights the diverging streams of Evangelicalism more than anything else. There is Bell setting up shop outside the traditional church and DeYoung seeking to transform things from the inside. In some ways Bell is to be applauded for provoking such a controversy, these questions need to be discussed and so I'm grateful for DeYoung's response.
Bird conforms something I predicted about this controversy and teaches me something. Bird says Bell's book will ultimately be "a flash in the pan". Not the deeper, larger more potent issues of salvation, but Bell's method of presenting them. (I think if anything Bell's method highlights growing fragmentation within Evangelicalism.) But Bird's observations highlight the value of taking the time to consider something, he finds criticisms of Love Wins that both Challies and DeYoung overlooked: for example Bell overlooks Jesus first century Jewish context.