REVIEW: LOVE WINS by Pastor Rob Bell

BOOK: Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell
MOD-BLOG RATING: *

THE SHORT VERSION:

More of a college bull session on paper than a serious discussion of the doctrine of Hell, Pastor Bell's book is thought-provoking but not particularly useful. It is recommended only to those interested in what Bell is hearing from non-Christians, rather than to current Christians looking for a real analysis or study of the historical doctrines of Hell.

THE LONG VERSION:

Since the time of the Jesus, the Church and it's leaders have had to keep a close eye on Doctrine - the right teaching about Jesus and God. First century heretics wanted to do away with Christ's humanity - arguing that his flesh was merely an illusion because all that was physical was evil. Later heretics attacked the idea of morality - arguing that Christ had brought complete freedom from ethical living. Still later heretics wanted to abandon Christ's deity - arguing that it was enough for Jesus to be a good teacher. Separating well-meaning questions from sheep from evil-intending questions from wolves has been a major preoccupation from Jesus to Peter to Paul to Augustine to Martin Luther to the present.

The newest charge of heresy within the Evangelical community is against Pastor Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle run by Pastor Mark Driscoll). In his new book "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived", Pastor Bell questions the existing prevailing doctrine of Hell - specifically the eternality and finality of eternal punishment - and points out how the doctrine has done much to alienate non-believers.

Bell's book is not a comprehensive treatise on the doctrine of Hell, neither an analysis of its historical underpinnings nor a detailed philosophical argument for a particular position. It is even hard to really figure out what his exact position is on the doctrine of Hell. (I suspect Pastor Bell would see this as "nuanced", whereas to me it was simply "vague".) But I believe this is a fair encapsulation of his views:

Hell does exist. However, it is neither eternal nor inevitable for any human being. Hell is not "punishment", but rather God allowing us to choose to be without Him, which is necessarily misery. God's love and omnipotence is paramount over his wrath or judgement, and ultimately all will come to Him, whether it takes a lifetime or millennia.

Pastor Bell's arguments are actually limited to only a single chapter of the book (all others are preamble, or reflection afterwards) and come out to these:

1. From the very earliest Church fathers, there have been those who believed Hell was not eternal.
2. References to Hell in scripture are vague. (He has digressions into discussions about the Hebrew "Sheol", Greek "Tartarus" and "Hades", and a dismissive look at Gehenna.)
3. God is absolutely sovereign, and absolutely wants all to be reconciled to Him.
4. Most of Jesus's references to "the coming wrath" were references to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and not to Hell. (A statement he does not spend much time defending.)
5. "Forever" is an incoherent concept, and not one recognized by the Biblical writers.
6. A temporary Hell is "a better story" than an eternal place of conscious torment.

I am not going to address each of these in turn - I leave it to other more educated men and women to do that. But I will note that none of these arguments are novel, convincing, or in many cases even compatible with a plain reading of the text. And Bell ignores many, many more scriptures dealing with Jesus speaking words like "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41) Nor does he dedicate much time to the "lake of fire, which is the second death" in Revelation, which is the most clear reference to an eternal place of torment in all of scripture.

However, in the end, it appears to me that #6 above is the core of Bell's argument. "An eternal Hell makes for a bad story. A temporary Hell where all are ultimately saved makes for a much better one!" Bell is known for embracing the Arts more than the average Evangelical pastor, and his book is full of shifts from a prose to a poetic style (something I found jarring as a reader). As such, he is clearly bothered by the idea of an unhappy ending for many, and by the fact that there are many who reject Christ because they can not accept a God who would sentence a plurality or majority of the human race to a place of eternal torment "for a few short years of sin on the Earth." And he is even more disturbed by the number of people who have rejected Christ because of the traditional doctrine of Hell.

But Christ warned that the gospel, while being "Good News", would be an offense for many. And that "the way to life is narrow, but broad the way to destruction". Over and over in scripture - both Old and New Testaments - we see God saving a "remnant" from destruction - a relatively tiny number out of the mass of humanity.

But the weakness of Bell's argument is actually a saving point. I said to someone after reading the book, "What Bell proposes is heresy, but I do not think Bell is a heretic." This book is not intended to set a new standard for critical analysis, or preach that anyone who teaches Hell is against Christ. Instead, it is like a late-night college bull session, where a bunch of guys stand around saying "What do you think about THIS?" or "Have you ever thought about THAT?" These discussions are not intended to be the last word on any topic. They're intended to stimulate thinking, bat around ideas, and provide a safe forum to ask questions that no college professor would take seriously. Ultimately, they strengthen the orthodox, by allowing each person to figure out why the heterodox fails for him or herself.

Overall, I do not recommend this book to most readers. It's not a serious discussion that shows both sides of the issue, or even provides a coherent argument for its own side. It is more likely to disturb and weaken than to edify. But if you are someone who enjoys playing with ideas, and are comfortable doing lots of your own research afterwards, it can provide a diverting read.

And be aware, if Pastor Bell does shift from "What if?" to "This is the only way", he will truly have become a heretic.

Hell & It's Critics

I am not sure how many Mod-Bloggers have been paying attention, but a recent book has renewed an old debate about the existence of Hell and it's place in Christian doctrine. It is easy to forget just how controversial the idea of a place of eternal punishment can be to a non-Christian or humanistic mind. In the mainstream press, people are airing defense of the doctrine of Hell and strong criticisms of it.

The central question of the book - and most of the critiques of it - is "Is Gandhi in Hell"? i.e. Is a man universally recognized as a moral champion who is NOT Christian bound for eternal torment. I imagine similar questions could be asked of other great moral leaders.

To be clear, I believe the general answer of orthodox Christians to this question is "Salvation is found ONLY in Jesus Christ, and as far as we know those who die without saving knowledge of Him are in Hell. However, God is sovereign and if He chooses to make exceptions, He can do so. But if He makes exceptions, it is not indicated in scripture."

Interested to see what Mod-Bloggers think about this controversy. I've already discussed with a few of you. (And yes, I know we need to differentiate between the controversy raised in the book and the controversy triggered by the book.)

Haven't had any time to fact-check this...

...against scripture or history, but I find this illustration to be fascinating. It is one artist's conception of the universe as understood by the ancient Hebrews, purely off of Old Testament scriptures.

Deep Thought of the Day: Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Well, I started off my day reading Ward's critique of James Dobson, so why not fan the flames of theology a little more? While driving home from work the other day, I came across an interesting bumper sticker. (Photo is not mine, but looks similar.)



Clever, right? Turns the "What Would Jesus Do?" thing on its head, and makes you consider the apparent irony of a "Christian" nation attacking another country. I respect a good slogan.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized it really misses something else about Jesus. Yes, He is the "Prince of Peace" and he raised a hand against no one at his trial. But this is the same Jesus who overturned the moneychangers tables and whipped them out of the Temple. It is the same Jesus who said...

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34

This Jesus is no pacifist. And in the imagery we see of Him in Revelation, it is even more stark.

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
Revelation 19:11-15

Now, I am not saying diplomacy is not generally preferable to combat, or that war is not something to be avoided, when it can. But I am saying that we need to always be careful of our stereotyped, narrow views of Jesus as either the perfect pacifist, the glowering judge, the liberal activist, the conservative avenger, or anything else. He is bigger than our prejudices, and bigger than our assumptions.

So, let the warmongers fear calling for blood in His name, and let the peaceniks fear calling for retreat in His name.

Hard Teachings: the "Gospel of Life" or the "Gospel of Life-After-Death"

I have been very thankful of late that God has brought me across a lot of Christians whose beliefs I am not only in disagreement with, but which sometimes shock me. In my earlier years, most of my "shocks" were constrained to my interactions with strict Catholics (salvation by works) and militant charismatics (salvation by speaking in tongues). I generally felt like the "enlightened" and "tolerant" one, because I could answer their arguments easily and show that my faith was superior and more thought out. They sometimes respected my calm, reasoned approach, and sometimes told me frankly that they thought I was damned. But generally, I walked away unchanged from the experience. But these recent "shocks" have been far more useful because (1) I walk away humbled and (2) the arguments are often those I can't easily answer.

Take for instance this post from a "reformed Christian" (and he doesn't mean the classical definition). This Christian went to a funeral of a teen killed in a driving accident, where he faced a eulogy given by an evangelistically-minded pastor who used it as an opportunity to reach out to those who would not normally see the inside of a church, and gave a gospel message. My reaction would have been "Well done. Take every opportunity to present the gospel." His reaction, "This man is trying to deny the family their right to grieve, and is preaching a gospel of death." Wow.

Click on thru, if you are up to a challenge to the "Evangelical" view. But be aware there is some strong (some would say profane) language, due to the emotions involved. I originally hesitated to post this, because I knew it would disturb some and because I feel the poster is wrong on many points. But I think it is a useful article for illustrating the kinds of hard questions we really need to be thinking about and ready to answer for ourselves.

Finding truth in pop culture

One of the things that I've struggled with for some time is where should the line be drawn for what Christians partake of in popular culture. Some people, for instance, won't watch a movie if it's rated more than PG while others have no problem watching an R rated film. Some will only listen to music they can find at the Christian book store or on Christian radio, while others have no problem listening to Rage Against the Machine or other such acts. I've heard lots of theories for why we should or should not take part in popular culture. If you've been around this blog for long you know that I tend to fall on the more liberal side of the argument, though I can totally understand the conservative perspective. Well, I finally found an article that breaks down the whole concept quite well and will help to direct my thinking on this subject for some time to come. (Note: the article is fairly long)