I've watched the Brashir interview (http://bit.ly/fGPBzm), the much longer interview in New York
(http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2011/03/rob_bell_on_uni.html); I've read critiques by people who have read the book
(http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/, http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book, http://www.dennyburk.com/revising-hell-into-the-heterodox-mainstream/ - they are all negative, seem fair, and are persuasive) and a few things occur to me:
1) Rob Bell just doesn't think like most of us
2) His presentation is very attractive to those not committed to Christ
3) He absolutely refuses to be fit in a box
4) He does a lot of "deconstruction" of Bible, words, and ideas
5) He seems to put up a lot of "straw man" characterizations of things like God, heaven, hell, etc.
6) I am personally concerned about several of his statements that seem vastly different from the plain meaning of the Biblical text
7) He has a propensity for not answering the questions that are asked. I'm very familiar with this in the political arena but am personally very uncomfortable with this in the arena of theology.
8) Finally, let's say - for the sake of argument - that Bell is wrong on his view of heaven and hell. Yet those who have been at his church (people I personally know and trust) say that he is very good on other doctrines. If he is wrong on one thing then, it seems to me, he ought to be confronted on that thing. There are critiques out there that are 'out of scope.'
However, do not misunderstand me: if he is wrong, it is completely appropriate to criticize what he is saying.