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.

The Thinking Behind the Narnia Movies

I don't bring it up much here, but I am a major C.S. Lewis fan. His work was a major formative influence on my philosophy and theology. And I have really enjoyed the "Chronicles of Narnia"movies, despite their faults. So, I was glad to see a new interview on Christianity Today discussing Dawn Treader, and where the franchise is going next.

So what kind of reaction are you getting from those people about Dawn Treader?
There's agreement that we are getting things right thematically. In terms of Reepicheep with that Aslan-size hole in his heart, getting that right. In terms of Eustace talking about no matter how hard I tried I couldn't do it myself, the idea that redemption is something that has to be given; it can't be earned. For the most part people have agreed that we've done a good job with those themes.

Will Tea Party Republicans keep their promises?

We've seen the pattern again and again. A movement arises with high ideals, gains power, gets elected, and quickly sells out its ideals in order to gain additional power. It's been seen on the Left and the Right and in the Middle. Now the question is will the Tea Party follow the same course or will they be able maintain some level of intellectual honestly? And perhaps more importantly, can they stay honest without sacrificing actual accomplishment?

Republicans campaigned coast to coast on, among other things, a promise to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget.

But now they are talking about cuts as slim as $30 billion, blaming the change on the fine print that no one read -- or if they read, did not understand.

It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed. And now that the fiscal year is nearly half over, well, there's just no way ...

They say no War Plan survives contact with the Enemy. My guess is we should prepare for some disappointment.

What is more important, ideas or leadership ability?

This race is not over yet. Not by a long shot, no matter what the day-to-day polls say. John McCain has made a career out of comebacks in the final seconds of the political game. But still, I think it is wise to look at the implications of an Obama win.

During my ruminations, I came across this video about an interview with Obama. It is NOT the interview, just one reporter's thought ABOUT the interview. It talks about Obama's character and not his ideas - his thoughtfulness, his seriousness, and his decisiveness. And it raised a question for me. What is more important in a president - a leader in general - his (or her) ideas or their ability to lead?

Of course, to a point, this is a foolish question, because any "good" leader will lead people in the direction s/he wants to go in. But if we look deeper, it is important. Ronald Reagan lead strongly and united a world against Communism - the great threat of his time - despite the fact that his ideas were at odds with much of America. Bill Clinton lead America to a balanced budget and economic prosperity, despite ideas which might have saddled us with massive new entitlements instead. George W. Bush has changed America, but his finest moments were not around an ideological speech, but rather around his responses to 9/11 and his leading America in the days following.

This gives me hope for an Obama presidency. If he truly can lead and unite us, he may be a man who can unite and lead to great things, even if I believe his ideas are wrong. A united American can do great things, even in hard time - especially in hard times. Perhaps having the character of a leader is the most important thing. What do Mod-Bloggers think?

Philosophy on the rise in Colleges

I don't know how many Mod-Blog readers know that I was a philosophy major in college. I started out in Physics and learned in my Sophomore year that I did not want to spend the rest of my life eating, breathing, and thinking Mathematics 24/7. Philosophy - augmented by mathematics and computer science - turned into a major for learning LOGIC, which has been invaluable to my career in Information Technology.

In an age where NONE of my friends got a job in the area they majored in, doesn't it make sense to choose a major which prepares you for LIFE rather than for a particular field? Apparently, many, many college students are thinking the same way as philosophy departments across the country are seeing a huge boom in enrollment.

Death and Medicine

I have been fortunate to not lose too many people close to me to death (two of my four grandparents died before I was born). An article on Wired talks about preliminary research into drugs that could stop age related diseases. The downside? In the lab animal tests the animal still died around the age they would have. The difference is that there is no cause of death that they can pinpoint it too. The question posed by the author is, how would this change our life knowing that there would be no signs of coming death? I'm somewhat torn on this... on the one hand, it would be nice to not have people suffer. On the other hand, in my limited experience with dealing with the death of loved ones, I would think that having some warning is easier than no warning at all. One commenter brings up another issue... if there are no signs of death, we couldn't allow those past a certain age to do anything dangerous such as driving. What do other Mod-Bloggers think... if available (and side-effects were minimal to none), would you take the drugs? Would you want your loved ones taking the drugs?

Warning: I have not watched the videos with the article. They appear to be clips of movies, but I do not know if they are family friendly or not.

Review: The Invasion

I saw The Invasion last night with my brother-in-law. Although I have not seen either the 1956 or 1978 versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I enjoyed the movie. Plot-wise, the movie wasn't very special. It is, for the most part, your basic "Save the planet from destruction" type movie. At one point in the movie, I actually chuckled at how ridiculous it had gotten.

That being said, there were two things that I found interesting. First, there was a new camera / time line trick I had not seen before. Twice during the movie, the screen did a split. In one pane, the movie continued the current scene. In the other pane, it showed what happens directly after the current scene. I don't know that I would have enjoyed watching a movie that continually used this as your mind has to meld both future and present together at the same time, but it was interesting nonetheless. The second was how they intertwined philosophy and current events into the plot. This movie was not a philosophical heavy movie, but it did have just a touch in there to add some substance to the basic plot.

All-in-all it's worth seeing if you have an interest in camera / time line work or want to see a fun movie with just a touch of philosophy in it. That being said, it's definitely one you can wait for to come out on DVD.

This movie is rated PG-13. The Kids-In-Mind review can be found here.

Why Terrorism Doesn't Work

Wired has up a fascinating article that explains why in most cases terrorism does not achieve the ends it seeks, and oftentimes winds up causing the opposite of what the terrorist desires.

People tend to infer the motives -- and also the disposition -- of someone who performs an action based on the effects of his actions, and not on external or situational factors. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, you assume it's because he wanted to -- and is a violent person -- and not because he's play-acting... Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent civilians, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- (are) the objects of the terrorist groups. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.

Of course, Al Qaeda and the like are unlikely to take the advice of Western scientists and studies, so things are unlikely to change. But perhaps this will influence the next generation of Islamic thinkers to find a different model to change the world... and maybe this time it can be Christ or Gandhi who learned you can change the world without committing violence.

Sigh

Speaking of Post-Moderism

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.