Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who love questions and those who love answers.

Question-lovers focus on the ambiguity and uncertainty of belief. Reality is bigger and more complex than our theories about it. Consequently, we must be humble in the face of mystery, knowing how much we do not know.

Answer-lovers focus on the clarity and certainty of belief. Reality may slip the grasp of theory at the margins, but theory has a firm grip on reality at the center. So, we must act courageously in the world on the basis of what we do know.

Rob Bell loves questions. His critics love answers. This difference between them--a difference that is both temperamental and methodological--illuminates the controversy surrounding Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

Bell asks, "Does God get what God wants?"--namely, "all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:4). He further asks, "Do we get what we want?" A "yes" answer to the first question makes you a universalist, that is, a person who believes that God both desires the salvation of all people and realizes that desire. A "yes" answer to the second question makes you a proponent of hell, that is, a person who believes that we can be separated from God for eternity.

A "yes" answer to both questions makes you Rob Bell, a hell-believing universalist.

If that description of Bell strikes you as an oxymoron, you are probably an answer-lover who longs for clarity and certainty. To you, belief in universalism and belief in hell form an incoherent set. Either/or but not both/and.

But Bell is a question-lover comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. God will get what God wants. And we will get what we want. Either way, love wins. "If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours. That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins."

Read that quote again. If we want heaven, love wins. If we want hell...love wins there too?

In my opinion, Bell can make that statement only by redefining hell. The Christian tradition--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--defines hell as the sentence of eternal punishment rendered by God against the unrighteous. One of the source passages for this definition is Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. In that passage, Jesus teaches that he himself will separate the righteous and the unrighteous and render judgment. "Then they [the unrighteous] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Bell thinks the tradition has misinterpreted Jesus' words in verse 46. There, Jesus contrasts two fates: kolasin ai'nion and z''n ai'nion. The standard English translation of these two phrases is "eternal punishment" and "eternal life," respectively, although the words everlasting and forever occasionally appear instead of eternal. According to Bell, the "word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish." And ai'nion describes either "a period of time with a beginning and an end" or "a particular intensity of experience that transcends time" (emphasis in original). According to Bell, then "the phrase [kolasin ai'nion] can mean `a period of pruning' or `a time of trimming,' or an intense experience of correction."

If the tradition defines hell as eternal punishment, then Bell redefines it as temporal or particularly intense pruning. The former is ultimate and retributive. The latter is penultimate and remedial. What Bell says about the interplay of human sin and divine judgment in the Old Testament captures the gist of what he's saying about hell: "Failure, we see again and again, isn't final, judgment has a point, and consequences are for correction."

There are several problems with reasoning about hell in this way: First, Bell commits "the root fallacy" when he thinks the root-meaning of kolaz'/kolasin determines its meaning. In the New Testament, kolaz' and kolasin are translated as "punish" and "punishment" in the four instances where they are used (Acts 4:21, 2 Pet. 2:9; and Matt. 25:46, 1 John 4:18, respectively). The root-meaning in and of itself cannot determine whether that punishment is remedial (which is what Bell intends by "pruning" or "trimming") or retributive. Second, the word ai'nion must be translated the same way in both of its instances in Matthew 25:46. If hell is temporal, so is heaven. If hell is an intense experience that transcends time, so is heaven. Obviously, Bell desires to limit the duration of hell, but in doing so, he ends up limiting the duration of heaven at the same time. Third, the problem of citing the Old Testament interplay between human sin and divine judgment is that this interplay is corporate and historical. In other words, it applies to the nation (Israel) or city (Jerusalem), not every citizen or resident. And it applies to that corporate body's experience in this age, not necessarily in the age to come.

Bell doesn't draw a sharp distinction between this age and the age to come. He argues--correctly, forcefully, and with great insight--that they overlap in the present age. (He also argues--again, correctly, forcefully, and with great insight--that our eschatology should shape our ethics.) Theologians describe the overlap as inaugurated eschatology. In other words, through his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ inaugurates "the age to come" in the midst of "this age." In terms of heaven, this means that we can begin to experience "eternal life" right here and right now. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come," Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "The old has gone, the new is here!" But inaugurated eschatology also applies in terms of hell. Romans 1:18 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people." And 2:5 adds, "because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." According to these verses, right now, we begin to experience either "eternal life" and "new creation" or "wrath" and "judgment."

The New Testament teaches inaugurated eschatology, but it also teaches consummated eschatology. If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ inaugurates, his second coming consummates. Consider, again, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, which begins this way: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him..." (Matt. 25:31). Or 1 Corinthians 15:51-52: "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."
Or Revelation 19:11: "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." In these passages, and in many others, Christ's return marks a definitive turning point in the relationship between God and his creatures. In the words of the Nicene Creed, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead."

For Bell, there does not seem to be a definitive turning point, a crisis moment where destinies are finalized. Hell, especially, is temporal and remedial. How long one spends there depends on how long one resists God's love. "Hell is our refusal to trust God's retelling of our story." Bell draws attention to Revelation 21:25, which says of the New Jerusalem: "On no day will its gates ever be shut." Then he writes: "That's a small detail, and its' important we don't get too hung up on details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process. But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go." Bell sees this as an image of hope. Those who have chosen hell can choose heaven. Logically, though, the image contains a note of despair, for what stops a person who has chosen heaven from choosing hell? Absent the precipitating event of Christ's second coming and the final judgment, it seems to me that life as Rob Bell portrays it will always be an ongoing struggle between heaven and hell, with no guarantee of a final resolution.

And if that's the case, in what sense does love actually win?

Rob Bell is not the Messiah. Nor the devil. He asks questions that many people in the world are asking. Whatever leanings you had deep inside before coming to this book, you will probably only find more backing for those. If you are pro-hell, it will probably only drive you further in thinking he is a heretic. If you always wished God was more loving and less stiff than you were taught, you will be happy to find this as a great resource to build your case on. It only leaves me with more questions. But they are good ones.

For all the other reviewers to come: Whatever you do, PLEASE make sure to remember that the world will be reading our responses here on Amazon. And the world will not want to become like you if all you can do is spew out venom because people dont believe like you. At very least, channel your anger into creative thoughts.

I believe that 100 years from now, this book will be viewed as the 95 theses of the 21st Century. Not because of any new earth-shattering insights, but because the right person said it in the right place at the right time. Thank you Rob.

NOTE: I co-wrote a review of this book with Blogger and Author Tim Challies that appeared on his blog and mine last week. This review is based on my notes from reading the book prior to Tim's additions.

-------------

Questions matter. They can help you to grow deeper in your knowledge of the truth and love for God--especially when you're dealing with the harder doctrines of the Christian faith.

But questions can also be used to obscure the truth.

Rob Bell is a man who has spent much of the last seven years asking a lot of questions in his sometimes thought-provoking and often frustrating fashion. In his new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell asks another question, perhaps the most controversial he's posed yet:

Does a loving God really send people to hell for all eternity?

Bell begins with surprising forthrightness: Jesus' story has been hijacked, he says, by a number of different stories that Jesus has no interest in telling. "The plot has been lost, and it's time to reclaim it." (Preface, vi)

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better... 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. (ibid)

You may want to read that again.

It really says that. And it really means what you think it means.

Bell rightly points to Revelation 21, citing that the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is coming down to the new earth. He also affirms that heaven is a real place where God's will alone is done and that at present, heaven and earth are not yet one (pp. 42-43). These are points that I doubt anyone could seriously question.

His argument then turns to this: Because heaven will eventually come to earth, if we're to take heaven seriously, we must take the suffering that exists in the world seriously now. Therefore, we are called to participate "now in the life of the age to come. That's what happens when the future is dragged into the present" (p. 45).

As his argument builds throughout the book, he redefines humanity's role within creation from being a regent or steward to being God's partner, "participating in the ongoing creation and joy of the world" (p. 180), and engaging in creating a new social order with Jesus (p. 77). This language of partnering and participating is frequently applied to causes of social justice by Bell.

Similarly, hell is more about what we do to each other, rather than what we've done to God. Bell reads Jesus' warnings of divine punishment as addressing only the temporal, rather than both the temporal and the eternal. They were for the religious leaders of the day, and had nothing to do with some other reality or some other time, he argues (pp. 82-83).

Throughout the book, Bell engages in what I can only describe as exegetical gymnastics, particularly in dealing with the Greek word aion.

Bell states that this word, which is commonly translated as "eternal" or "everlasting," can also mean "age" or "period of time," or "intensity of experience". Using this approach, he briefly argues from the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that eternal punishment isn't eternal, but rather an intense period of pruning, as "'forever is not really a category the biblical writers used" (see pp. 93-94).

Here's the thing: while aion and aionos can mean "age" or "period of time," they also mean "eternal." The word's context helps us to determine it's meaning. So if we assume that these words primarily mean "age" or "period of time," what happens when we apply that definition to John 3:16 where aionios is used:

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only Son so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have life for a period of time [aionios]."

Not as encouraging, is it? At the end of the day, this approach gives more biblical credence to living your best life now than it does worshipping Jesus.

Throughout the book, I did find a number of points where I would absolutely agree with Bell, particularly when he identifies some of the goofy things that people have concocted to make God's absolute sovereignty palpable (such as "age of accountability" type doctrines). But his answers are equally unsatisfying.

As he makes his case, Bell seems to delight in being obtuse, creating caricatures of opposing views that lack logic and compassion. He paints himself as the victim of the hateful, toxic, venomous denizens of certain corners of the internet that believe "the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do" (p. 185). Thus, Rob Bell appoints himself a martyr for his cause, and anyone who disagrees with him is preemptively silenced.

Ultimately, though, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose.

People are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. But this begs the question: If we're free to come to God on our own, why do we need Jesus? Why would He come to live and die on our behalf? And why, then, would we tell anyone about this good news?

What's actually good about it?

This is the question that Bell avoids, because the truth is, if he is correct, we have no need of Jesus. If we don't actually need to believe in Him because, in the end, God isn't going to stop pursuing people until they all finally come into relationship with Him, then there's no compelling reason for evangelism. There's no compelling reason to gather together as the Church.

Because it doesn't matter. We all get into the party and eventually we'll all be happy to be there--right?

If Love Wins accurately represents Bell's views on heaven and hell, it reveals him as a proponent of "Christian Universalism."

And if that's the case, it is cause for mourning.

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is.

Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely in the horizontal: "Love your neighbor," without "love the Lord."

And if this is what we're going to call love, it doesn't hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God, who "shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8).

That's the kind of love that wins. That's the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. Our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.

I actually agree with some of this book. I could find no disagreements with the chapter on Heaven, for example. Bell laid out a lot of interesting ideas and really started some heavy thoughts, which is always a good thing. But there is nothing new here. It's all been said or written before. Bell acts as if everyone thinks of heaven as the boring, floating around, playing harps on clouds while wearing white robes like they portray in cartoons. I think most people are a lot smarter than that.

I also disagree with a lot of this book, too.

In the chapter on Hell, Bell makes the following statement, "God is loving and kind and full of grace and mercy--unless there isn't confession and repentance and salvation in this lifetime, at which point God punishes forever. That's the Christian story, right?"
I can answer that question like this: Right...and wrong. Yes, God is loving and kind and full of Grace and mercy. But no to the rest. Salvation is a must. There's no doubt about that. Scripture is very clear. And repentance and confession are a part of the salvation process, but God does not 'punish' us by 'sending' us to hell.
If a parent tells a child not to touch the stove because it will burn him, and the child touches the stove anyway, and gets burned, you can't say that the parent punished the child by allowing him to get burned. Any good parent would not want their child burned, and would warn against it. If a child gets burned, its because he disobeyed his parents and received the consequences of that action. It's the same thing with hell. God repeatedly warns us about it, and offers the answer in Jesus. But it's up to us to obey, and not get burned.

He then goes on to quote many scriptures in an attempt to prove that the 'Christian story' is NOT right. He claims that we have no basis for that belief and our ideas of heaven and hell have come not from the Bible, but from what others have said about the Bible. His exact words are, "For many in the modern world, the idea of hell is a holdover from primitive, mythic religion that uses fear and punishment to control people for all sorts of devious reasons."

Again and again, throughout this book, Bell keeps going back to the 'punishment' theory. Here's an interesting quote from page 173: "A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them would, in the blink of an eye, become a cruel, mean, vicious tormentor who would ensure that they had no escape from an endless future of agony." The bible is clear that God doesn't want ANYONE to die and go to hell, but with our freewill in play, He can't make us accept salvation.

A couple of paragraphs later, Bell says this: "And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: They don't love God. They can't, because the God they've been presented with and taught about can't be loved. That God is traumatizing and unbearable." (page 174).
I've got news for Rob Bell. I am a Christian and I DO love God. I love Him for many reasons, including the fact that He sent His only son to die for my many sins, and I love Him for the many prayers He's heard from me, and I love Him for so many other reasons.

Bell also takes freedom with the story of Lazarus and the rich man. I think he is just plain wrong here. He reports that in asking for Lazarus to bring a drop of water to quench his burning tongue, the rich man is still seeking to be served by Lazarus, which Bell interprets as the rich man still thinking he is above Lazarus.... He says that's the 'chasm' mentioned in the story. He goes on to explain his beliefs, but I totally disagree with him. And I think its a huge stretch.

If we take the 'punishment' theory out of this book, it falls flat. That seems to be the only thing Bell has to disprove the fact that we must accept our salvation, and work it out with fear and trembling.I walked away from this book with mixed feelings. Bell says a lot of things that need to be heard, but he also says things that can be very dangerous.
It's an interesting book, with some 'fun to think about' ideas, but I can't find the biblical back-up for a lot of it.

"I have written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomachs to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, `I would never be a part of that.'" (Rob Bell, Love Wins, from page viii of the Preface)

In this statement, Rob Bell describes the reason he wrote the book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (Harper One, 2011). This statement also defines the reason that many have been critical of this book, even before it was released.

Those familiar with Rob Bell (founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan) know that he is very comfortable functioning in the grey areas of life. His previous books and videos have typically given a fair hearing to the honest questions raised about issues related to Christian faith and message (especially from those outside or on the margins of the Christian church).

In fact, in his three minute advanced video promoting the book, Bell does little more than ask some tough questions. He doesn't answer those questions. He doesn't reject the objections these questions bring to the forefront of dialogue and debate. He also refuses to offer the pabulum of pat answers from the typical evangelical playbook. Instead, he allows the questions to be heard, to sink in, perhaps to fester a bit in people's thoughts and reflections.

What Bell began in this video he continues in the entire first chapter of his book. The questions are intense and raised in a rapid fire way, interspersed with biblical references that seem to raise the same types of concerns.

"Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?"

"If there are only a select few who go to heaven...How does a person end of being one of the few?"

"Some Christians believe that up to a certain age children aren't held accountable for what they believe or who they believe in, so if they die during those years, they go to be with God...(The age of accountability is thought to be anywhere from conception to about age twelve.) ...What happens when a fifteen year old atheist dies? Did he miss his chance?"

The questions just keep coming. Bell raises issues such as the following:

What group does a person have to join to be included in salvation?

What groups can you not join if you want to be included in salvation?

What about people who reject the message because of clergy abuse?

What if the missionary gets a flat tired on her way to preach the gospel?

What does it mean to "get saved" anyways?

Does it happen cause of something you believe;

something you accept;

something you pray;

something you do;

some tribe you that belong too?

And if any of these things earn your salvation, how is it a work of grace?

By raising these questions as he does, Bell allows the objections to really be heard - as well as giving voice to those who raise the objections. These might include those labeled as seekers, agnostics, or even atheists. Or it may be somebody who has been called an apostate - a former "members in good standing" who has now rejected their former faith tribe and confession. Others in the crowd of questioners might even be called pastor, preacher, professor, pew sitter, or parish lay-leader.

Bell is comfortable with questions- and he makes others feel comfortable with their questions, thereby opening a door that can engage them in discussions about faith. Before the book was published, I shared the promotional video with a friend, an avowed agnostic, who contacted me, saying:

"Bill, I love that video ... does your interpretation of the Christian bible corroborate his interpretation? Bill what is your opinion specifically on the notion of love being your ticket to heaven...?"

My friend illustrates the importance of having faith communities which are safe places to raise honest questions while still being profoundly respected. As Bell writes: "There is no question that Jesus cannot handle, no discussion to volatile, no issue too dangerous."

If churches could simply learn the importance of hearing and dealing with tough questions without casting judgment or practicing exclusion, I believe that the witness of the church to Jesus and the life he brings would be revolutionized. Sadly, the firestorm that was ignited about this book before it had been release illustrates that many churches - and many so-called "respected church leaders" - are simply not mature enough for such a discussion. A large percentage of the fundamentalist and Calvinist churches (and their leaders) evidently have a problem with honest and open questions. Rhetorical questions are fine, provided they are immediately answered by what is considered "right doctrine" by their pastors, teachers, or leaders. Once declared, it (their understanding of the truth) should not be questioned. To illustrate this sad reality, one critic tweeted his response to Bell's book (without having read it) saying, "Farwell, Rob Bell." In so doing, he not only was building a wall between himself and Bell, but he was also saying to others: "If you are asking the kinds of questions Rob Bell is asking, you are not fit for inclusion inside the our Christian tradition."

With all that said, there is a "third-way" type of response that might be made to Love Wins. It is a response that is only possible NOW that the book has actually been released, and only possible from those who have actually read the book. That response would be to respectfully engage with Bell by dealing with the questions raised and the responses made. Such an engagement might include agreement, disagreement, or some mixture of both. In this book and the several interviews that have surrounded it, Bell has indicated that he welcomes all such responses. His aim has been to open a new thread of discussion about "heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who has ever lived."

Before addressing the central theme of the book, let me dispel just a few of the myths that have been propagated by Bell's opposition.

First, despite comments to the contrary, Bell is not a Universalist. Bell does not believe that God will wave a magic wand, after which everyone who has ever lived will suddenly be swept into God's eternal presence. For God to act in such a way would not be loving thing to do since it would force a destiny upon people which they might not want to accept. Love doesn't act that way, and, as Bell communicates by the very titled of the book: Love Wins!

Second, Bell does believe in heaven and hell. He believes that they are both honest-to-goodness real places that can be found someplace in the economy of God. He believes this, partly, because the Bible says such places exist - but only partly. (An assertion that "the Bible says so" is pretty meaningless anyways, if you are not a part of a faith tribe that ascribes some sort of authority to the Bible.)

Bell's assertions about heaven and hell are more closely akin to what I understand of C.S. Lewis views on such matters. Bell postulates the reality of such places because he sees foreshadows of them in our time and place. He sees the hellish pain and suffering we experience in this world when we make choices which are rebellious against goodness and godliness. He also sees the dawn of heaven in the world as people make decisions in response to God's love that honor the goodness of God.

When handling the text on these matters, Bell is careful not to build a theology around poetic images not meant to be taken literally (such as "pearly gates" and "streets of gold"). Further, he rejects the pictures of hell that reveal more the influence of "Dante's Inferno" than biblical theology. Still, for those worried that Bell was denying the reality of actual places as heaven and hell, take a deep breath. Or, to put it in rhyme: "There is a hell!" - Rob Bell).

Third, Rob Bell has not rejected "historic, orthodox, Christian faith." He has, without question, frustrated a large segment of the even larger spectrum of that confession, but what Bell presents is this book is not new. In fact, as he says himself, he has not written anything here that has not been "taught, suggested, or celebrated" before.

That means that Bell in not alone in addressing these questions or offering possible responses. He has in his corner the thoughts of contemporary evangelical scholars like Eugene Peterson; emergent church type folks like Greg Boyd and Spencer Burke; and ancient church leaders like the Capadocian Fathers. His theological leanings would fit comfortably within the framework of Trinitarian theologian like Karl Barth, T.F. Torrance, James Torrance, and C. Baxter Kruger. So, these issues are not new. They have been discussed and debated frequently within the "historic, orthodox, Christian faith."

These issues are also played out in scripture. Bell spends a great deal of time in the early chapters of his book sharing these differing perspectives. Just this morning, in a community Lenten Bible study here in Richmond, a study participant asked about the teaching of salvation in John 3:1-17 (the story of Nicodemus) in contrast with the teaching in Mark 10:17-22 (the story of the rich ruler).

Many might be immediately tempted to explain away the apparant contradiction. Not Rob Bell. He refuses to engage in any sort of hermeneutic gymnastics to try to harmonize such vastly differing biblical perspectives. Instead, he celebrates the diversity and mystery of both, living in the tension and allowing it to prompt further discussion.

Now that my mini-apologetic for Bell is complete, let me move on to a discussion of the central theme or thesis of the book. Bell's desire is that we be called to reconsider the prevailing story of Jesus. Bell writes: "Jesus's story is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love, and it is for everybody, everywhere" (page 1).

Unfortunately, says Bell, the Jesus story has been "hijacked by a number of other stories, stories Jesus isn't interested in telling because they have nothing to do with what he came to do."

I understand Bell's point, having lived the early part of my years where the preaching of the Jesus' story made God appear to have some sort of multiple-personality disorder. This story was tied up in a view of atonement called "penal substitution." This view of atonement sees one part of the Trinity as being angry with us (the Father) while the other part of the Trinity (Jesus, the Son) as being loving and gracious toward us. Redemption, in this version of the Jesus story, sees God as angry with us because of sin and ready to pour out wrath upon us in judgment. In this story, if God's anger is not appeased we will be damned for eternity.

Salvation, then, is a "legal process" - a penalty that must be paid. For those who are convinced that this is THE (all caps, implying that it is the ONLY) story of Jesus, any discussion about the nature of God or the mechanics of salvation must begin with "law" not love. Those who might write a theology of salvation based on this story might title it: "Law Wins." The law is such a powerful and controlling force in this version of the Jesus story that even God must submit to its dictates. Put another way, God MUST punish lawbreakers. God has no choice. God is stuck.

While Bell hedges his bets (i.e. he never really allows himself the pleasure of becoming bombastic or dogmatic) it is obvious that he has no great love for this version of the Jesus' story. He writes:

"God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sin, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let's be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer." (184)

So, then, if "penal substitution" is not an acceptable view of atonement, what is preferable for Bell? That's a good question. Bell does not clearly explain a theory of atonement. Rather, depending on which page you are reading and how you are feeling at any particular moment, you might see any of number of atonement theories (all of which have found voice, by the way, in "historic, orthodox, Christian faith.")

Sometimes Bell seems to be leaning towards a "Christus Victor" which teaches that in the death of Jesus (as expression of love), God defeated all the powers of evil and sin in which held humankind in bondage.

At other times, Bell seems to advocate the "moral influence" theory of atonement which teaches that through Jesus Christ, God provided such a positive moral example that eventually it will influence humanity toward moral change.

At still other times, Bell seems to advocate a substitutionary theory of atonement (though without the "penal" / "legal" baggage added later in church history). In this view, Jesus serves as a vicarious stand-in for the human race, fixing in himself (and for all of us) everything that was broken in Adam.

Based on my earlier reflection, I am not surprised that Bell didn't offer a more definitive statement about atonement. As I said, Bell seems more comfortable than most in the grey areas of life. As a pastor, that's certainly beneficial. That's where most people find themselves.

If you pick up a copy of Bell's book seeking to answer the question, "Who is in and who is out?" you will be disappointed. There are plenty of books, gospel tracts, and sermons about that all over the place. You'll find preachers attacking preachers, congregations and denominations suffering schism, and numerous bloggers attacking any theologian who has a substantial enough profile to get their blog noticed on the web - all about this very issue. In my opinion, the majority of this is small minded and petty - more a product of theological/political correctness than actual biblical and theological reflection.

Whether you agree with him or not, Rob Bell is opening the door to a third option. The option is this: Love Wins. Bell sees in Jesus the picture of a God who never gives up on us. He sees a God whose nature (DNA) is gracious love, not legal punishment. He sees in Jesus whose invitation is NOT, "Turn or Burn!" That makes it seem that God must somehow be appeased before we can be saved. This inverts the order of grace and creates an environment where fear, anger, and intimidation win, tainting the Gospel. Instead, the message is this: "Jesus, the Lamb of God, has taken our sin upon himself and dealt with it at the cross. Therefore, repent and believe the good news. Come and find life and know this: Love Wins."

As Bell puts it in his epilogue,

"May you experience this vast,

expansive, infinite, indestructible love

that has been yours all along.

May you discover that this love is wide

as the sky and as small as the cracks in

your heart no one else knows about.

And may you know

deep in your bones,

Rob Bell's latest book is a breath of fresh spiritual air being blown into the very stale atmosphere that evangelical orthodoxy has become. The genius of "Love Wins" is simple - it asks questions about Christian faith that ordinary people are asking every day. The intensely angry reaction to the book by the religious establishment is a perfect illustration as to why ordinary people often repress these questions. They fear they will be labeled "heretics" for not accepting at face value the unquestionable claims of orthodoxy. Funny thing - "heretic" is what they're calling Rob Bell for writing this book.

"Love Wins" is not for those who already know the answers and only want to read books they already agree with. Instead, the book speaks to real people who honestly wrestle with questions about heaven, hell, salvation and how to understand the Bible. In my community, that's most people. "Love Wins" is a great gift to this population of God's children simply because it grants them something the establishment doesn't - permission to honestly explore the Christian faith.

Another important contribution of "Love Wins" is its courage to say and demonstrate that Christian faith is not an unchanging, universally-agreed-upon system of doctrines, but an ongoing conversation within a highly diverse community whose members have been debating and arguing points of belief from the beginning until the present.

"Love Wins" says "Let the conversation continue. Become involved in it!"

While this invitation to dialogue may feel threatening to those who want to permanently anchor their faith into the theological constructs of the Middle Ages, those who have made the journey into the 21st century will find it extremely thought provoking and helpful in their growth as followers of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps most important of all, Bell's book invites us to think and act gracefully toward others. Consigning people to hell is not a beginning point for building understanding between people of different religions and cultures. Encouraging us to see others as God's beloved children, Rob Bell makes it possible for us to live out a faith through which love indeed will win.

Few wish to drink straight shots of espresso.

Fewer wish to drink syrup.

Even fewer still wish to eat ice.

But you put those things in a blender.

And press a button.

And people will pay $4.00 for it and suck it down.

That probably seemed profound.

And it was.

Because.

It was written in short sentences.

Double spaced.

And makes you feel like you've read a half page when you've really just read a few spaced out words.

So now you know what it's like both to read this book and what it actually does in the theological realm. Of course, one of the main reasons why this book is a "book" is becuase it is printed in a large font.

With short sentences.

Double spaced.

It could have been a series of blog posts, but it's a book because you had to pay for it.

OK, enough fun. I'm going to share my observations in a way that I haven't quite seen in any of the other numerous reviews to date. I'm going to take apart the blender.

First of all, there is the quote on the back cover by someone from the New York Times. And thats just great because when I want to know where Christianity is going, I go for the New York Times; (not really).

Chapter 1, What about that flat tire? It actually has a lot of hot air in it.

First, Bell makes tries to argue that the very idea that some go to a good place permanently while others go to a bad place permanently somehow invalides the traditional Christian view of God.

He sets up some straw-men (and women) stories of "Christians" behaving badly, like those "Christians" in Eastern Europe (page 7 to 8) who rounded up Muslims, herded them into a building and killed them with machine guns. That Jesus? Uh...no. The slap-in-your-face irony here is rather thick for anyone out there who has critical thinking skills. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Bell goes on to finish this chapter by posing so many questions about salvation that a biblically illiterate person would think it's something so complex that there's really no honest answer to. Oh, and just to ease some confusion, it's not by childbirth. When Paul wrote about women being "saved" through childbirth in 1 Timothy 2 means that women will be "saved" from the stuff that came previously in the chapter. It was a great insight for me when I learned that "saved" sometimes means "set apart", not necessarily "guaranteed a trip to heaven no matter what". Context is important.

Chapter 2, Here is the new there.

The joke about heaven being a church service going on forever (page 25) was funny. I'd thought of that before, and now I know that I'm not alone. That moved this book from one stars to two.

Page 34. Yes, "all nations" for sure. Wasn't that what Peter's vision in Acts was all about? Is that supposed to be news to non-emergent me? "A racist would be miserable in the world to come." writes Bell. You know, a racist would have been miserable in the church where I spent the decade of the 1980's. We had all shades of people there, and they were marrying each other too. Guess who cared about skin color. Nobody. How does that change anything about hell?

Page 36. Wow, I didn't know that God was looking for "partners...to care...in 'sustainable'" ways. How trendy is that?!

Page 37. Yup, every oil spill makes me shake my fist and cry out for a "God of judgement". Not really, I just want it cleaned up and I'm grateful for people who try to save the birds and sea critters.

Page 38. Wow. how about those countries "starving while warloards hoard the food supply?" The food they grow in that country or the food sent by a United Nations oblivious to what is being done with it? How about that country that's turning it's corn into fuel for automobiles rather than drilling for it's own oil and sending that corn to the starving? No problem there apparently. How about those who keep Africans from having DDT and leave millions of them to die from Malaria? No problem there either I guess. It seems that Bell's view of injustice is viewed through the single lens of pop liberal sensibilities.

I do agree with Bell's idea that part of being a citizen of Heaven is helping to bring Heaven to Earth right now. There's a hymn that goes, "This world is not my home; I'm just a passin' through; my treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue". Christians aren't called to just pass through,but this also doesn't change anything about hell for me either.

Bell then goes on to describe his vision of heaven where it seems that everyone gets in, just not their behaviors that will end once this age ends and the next begins. Heaven has "teeth, flames, edges, and sharp points." (page 49) So it's like Heaven and hell went into the blender and now Heaven has some of the attributes of hell, and everyone who ever lived is there, but any bad behaviors they bring with them simply won't be allowed. How entertaining!

Covetous person in heaven: "Grrrr, that person's mansion is bigger than mine!"

BRRRRZAP!

Covetous person in heaven with shredded body and smoldering head: "On second thought, I'm thankful for the mansion I have."

I'll leave it to Belinda Carlisle to summarize this chapter.

In this world we're just beginning
To understand the miracle of living
Baby, I was afraid before
Im not afraid anymore

Ooooooooh baby.
Do you know what that's worth?
Ooooooooh
Heaven is a place on Earth.

Chapter 3. Hell

Bell's bottom line on hell to me seems to be a purgatory that everyone still too defective upon death to admit to Heaven will suffer in until they change their hearts. (Reading this chapter was sort of like purgatory in a punishing sort of way).

First of all, it matters not to me how many or few are the passages in the Bible that mention hell, or what the exact word is. Counting passages and word variations just obfuscates the issue. One is enough if it really is the Word of God.

Second, Bell's take on the Rich Man and Lazarus (page 75) was amazing. He must be wiser than me because his interpretation has eluded me all these years. The chasm is the rich man's heart. The rich man, who in the story is suffering greatly and is desperate for those still in this life to know of the place of torment, really just wants Lazarus to serve him. He's still an evil rich guy who thinks he's better than Lazarus. Isn't that obvious? When I ask someone for help I am indeed asking them to serve (answer the needs of) me, but it does not follow that I think I'm better than that person. Rob "Love Wins" Bell can't cut this rich guy some slack even though he's in hades. I personally think the rich guy has gotten the point; he just got it too late.

Finally, and this is where I threw in the towel, on page 80 to 81 Bell is writing about Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey. He quotes the words "coming wrath" (just like that) coming from Jesus' mouth, but Jesus doesn't seem to have said that, or at least it's not recorded in the Gospels. John the Baptist is where the "coming wrath" quote comes from.

So, where do I go from here? I think I get the gist of the book. This review is too long already. I'm done.

If Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story, The Earth's Holocaust, were to ever become a reality, and if some of these reviewers had their way it would, Bell's book, Love Wins, would burn brighter than most (but not quite as bright as the Bible).

I believe this is Bell's 4th(?) book, and it seems that with each new publication the "controversy" surrounding him increases. It's gotten to the point that I couldn't even find this book in a Christian bookstore; their loss (in a customer and profits). You can even look at some of these reviews and see what I'm talking about. I believe that Albert Einstein said, "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." And I believe that sums up the controversy surrounding the book and it's author.

As for a review of the read, I found the book affecting my continuum of thought with every turn of the page. Bell's artistry with words and their placement present his arguments for Heaven, Hell, Christ, and The Gospel. His gift of storytelling draws one (without an agenda) into a story that begins and ends with the same proclamation, "Love Wins." He wraps up the book by saying, "Love is why I've written this book, and love is what I want to leave you with."(198) And it is evident that Bell's writing of this book displays a heart for those who are not as quick to accept the love of God as others, those who have intellectual barriers and hardened hearts, those who have been burned (or left to burn) by churches and their members, and those who are prone to wander/wonder (you know, those Christ cared about).

Bell riddles this book, more than his others, with questions; some thought provoking, others for seemingly artistic/elemental purposes. A majority of these questions however have been my own or one's asked to me, so my ability to engage the book was not hindered by dogmatic adherence in set beliefs. I found that his incorporation of scripture increased as well. So between questions and quotes the reading was a little boggy at times.

The first chapter ends with this climactic building of a mosaic of Biblical examples that point to a number of varying responses about heaven, salvation, and judgement. I'm going to be honest it was question-heavy, but it set up the need to set apart frivolous questions from meaningful ones, and he does so by going into the second chapter on heaven. He addresses heaven alright, and it seems that his response comes from a dissatisfaction with the idea that Christianity is/has been fundamentally about getting a "ticket" to heaven, and he claims that Christ created us for more. He then goes to present a heaven that exists in the here and now and in the future, then and calls for action. It really is quite appealing, and with a generation that is finding more purpose in serving others rather than themselves, the subsequent call for social justice and humanitarian acts are ideas that will resonate with them. This chapter is also filled with etymological interpretations, a deeper look into Christ's interaction with the Rich Man, and new insights (for me) on some of the historical contexts surrounding the teaching of the prophets.

In the chapter on hell, Bell addresses the ways in which this word has been translated from Hebrew and Greek words. Another etymological breakdown that I find myself unqualified to discuss (though I'm sure some Bible scholars on here have nothing better to do). He also talks about the Western Plutonic view of heaven and hell, which is something more people should be aware of (take a Phi 101 class), but the idea of Beverly Hills in the sky is SO appealing. Bell then goes on to preface the premise for his interpretation of hell by explaining that it has been a part of the vast river of thought we call Christianity since the beginning, and that it is nothing new just something not as well known to the audience he normally addresses. Again, in a bout of honesty, the concept of hell that Bell presents is so much more vividly and tormentingly frightful at it's core than even that presented by Jonathan Edwards. In doing this, it brings to light a view of God some simply cannot fathom (thus the regurgitation of rebuttals).

The next chapter, Does God Get What God Wants, began to touch upon the idea that we have no certainty in knowing who is right in their interpretation of scripture. For those of us who get frustrated with the unspoken statement of faith, inerrancy of interpretation, that most churches do not put on their websites this chapter was a relief. Although, Bell never gives an answer to the question, Does God Get What God Wants; He veers away from answering it claiming, "We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires." (115) This seems like a cop-out; he even goes back and labels this a tension rather than a question. Once I re-read the chapter though, I believe Bell, in essence, provides evidence for answers to this question though there is a resonating feeling of, "is this the right question?"

I suppose by this point in the book everybody thinks they've pinned Bell as a universalist. Woe is I! The argument (for whatever it is) is well-crafted, and the counter-arguments from other reviewers when examined closely fail in comparison to Bell's, because they aren't addressing it completely (but not necessarily a primitive version of universalism, so they win!). Bell claims that it is not an inclusive view, but rather a less elitist view of exclusivism. Though many will say this simply cannot be true (or fair). *By the way, have you ever heard a universalist say, "What Jesus does is declare that He, and He alone, is saving everybody?" (155) Me neither, although one could see where people would misinterpret that once you read it in context.

In, Dying to Live, he addresses the cosmical cycle of death and life and, well, it really is beautiful, aside from the cultural reference of Eminem.

There are Rocks Everywhere, I'd advise you to read this twice. This chapter is somewhat complex, and some things were new, and it took me a while to break down what he was saying. In it, he addresses the nature of Christ, and it seems like he suggests some sort of divine panentheistic view, but you'll want to read it for yourself. He takes Jesus out of the anthropomorphic box hubristic religious groups have confined him in, and at least frees Him from that (not for His sake but for ours).

The penultimate chapter, The Good News Is Better Than That, is a dissection of the parable of the prodigal son. It's profundity contains nothing you've heard in Sunday School. He also addresses other areas that those who claim he's a universalist seem to overlook. It's almost as though he expected rebuttal (or perhaps the argument is devilishly persuasive). And he ends with one of his "May you" blessings (so corny yet so cool).

In closing, I foresee this book as becoming a staple on the bookshelves of a future generation. Rob Bell has articulated and framed thoughts and arguments many have contemplated for a while. He's exposed a school of thought that has gone by without much notice, but has nonetheless lasted. He has written a book that is challenging and controversial on both a societal and personal level (controversy = popularity, e.g. The Shack). He's scribed a work that will allow some to break off the chains the staunch and pious have placed on way to view (their) god, so that we may strive to see, know, worship, and follow Him for who He truly is, and not what others claim him to be.

Euripides said, "Question everything. . ." but Paul appropriated it by saying, "Question everything; hold on to what is good." I suppose those are my words to heed not only as you read the book, but with these other reviews as well. Though some may think they have the market on God, Scripture, etc. cornered, they don't. I'm pretty sure Mr. Bell will admit to being only a man, and he never claims to have seen his head "brought in upon a platter." You must find out for yourself; you have a good God that will guide you where he wants you.

What Rob Bell presents that seems so fresh and new is actually the prevailing view of the Church during its first 500 years of history. Universalism was the prevailing view until the time of Augustine who helped usher in the hell-based paganistic nonsense we have in Christianity today. This incorporation of pagan mythology into Christianity gave rise to Dante's Inferno (1308-1321) and Michelangelo's Last Judgment (1535-1541), both of which are filled with Greek mythological images and personalities along with an angry, vengeful God. This insanity was perpetuated with hell-based Bible translations and hell-based Christian theology that has endured to our time. Rob Bell's book points us back to the wholesomeness of Christianity's roots which is exemplified in Scripture verses like:

1 Timothy 4:9-10 (NIV) "This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of ALL men, and ESPECIALLY OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE."

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NIV) "For as in Adam ALL die, so in Christ ALL will be made alive."

1 John 4:14 (NIV) "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the WORLD."

Some have complained that Rob Bell's work is not "theological" enough. If you want a more in-depth theological view of the message of ultimate reconciliation, I highly recommend Gerry Beauchemin's Hope Beyond Hell: The Righteous Purpose of god's Judgment. It's available free on the internet. Google "hope beyond hell."

I applaud Rob Bell's latest book, and I exult in the attention this long-forgotten teaching is receiving as a result of the publication of Love Wins!

Well, I read it. Love Wins by Rob Bell has been a hot button topic for awhile now. Controversy tends to surround

Bell, and his latest installment in his impossibly cool line of books has given rise to an uproar in the Christian community. The subtitle: `Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person who has Ever Lived' almost makes you hold your breath in tension (Uh oh... he's going to talk about that?). The twittersphere was exploding with commentary on their opinion of Bell and his book, calling him a universalist, a heretic and any other degrading thing you can possibly imagine (and all of this done without even reading the book... yikes). In my opinion this wasn't a good move for people who want to discredit Bell because all of the controversy has just made me and the rest of the world want to read the book. So after reading, what was my take? Does Rob Bell believe in hell? Is he a universalist?

In all fairness, the book really isn't about Bell developing a theology on hell. Nor is he trying to make a statement on hell's existence. Yes you can conclude (by traditional definitions) Bell is a universalist, and yes he does deny the existence of an eternal hell(in an extremely ambiguous way that is impossible to tack down). But his real aim is to alter the way we approach the gospel. Bell argues that the gospel is good news and ultimately about the love God has for everyone on earth. And honestly who can't jibe with that? When you have statements like:

When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather that joyous participation, it can actually serve to cut people off from the explosive liberating experience of the God who is an endless giving circle of joy and creativity.

You aren't going to find many who disagree with this. But is this conclusion only reached by changing our doctrines and dogmas?

The problem is, Bell diverts from the typical ideology of hell in order for the Christian story to be ALL about love. Bell would prefer to define hell (and heaven for that matter) as a place we create here on earth as a result of our actions instead of a place of eternal suffering and punishment away from God. Because how can a God that eternally punishes people be loving? It is a classic anthropomorphic argument (that means he's ascribing human attributes to God) that attempts to rid God of any characteristics that would seem cruel or unloving if they were credited to humans.

One of the main things that I don't like about Bell's books is not his applications for Christians in his books, they are usually awesome, but his logic to get to these particular points always seems so flawed to me. His books, including this one, will have over extended metaphors, wild interpretations of scripture that seem to go beyond what the story is really trying to communicate, and my least favorite, he seems to know all these Greek and Hebrew words that have hidden meanings and concepts that unlock secret messages that have been concealed for centuries. And all of these words conveniently exclude any references or sources that show any evidence for these beliefs. For instance: Bell says that Jesus often used the word "heaven" and was simply referring to God. If this is true, cool. But I've never heard it, and you have no sources to validate your claim.

I love the fact that he wants Christians to separate from solely preaching turn or burn type messages, that's good. (Even though it has worked in the past... see Jonathan Edwards and Jesus) But I don't think the solution is to change our theology, that's not the problem. There can be an eternal hell and a loving God. How it works... I'm not to sure. But I'm ok with these two seemingly contradictory elements to hang in tension on this side of eternity.

The book itself, in my opinion really isn't that good. It has fragmented arguments and tends to ramble and repeat itself. If you enjoy his style give it a shot just to see what all the controversy is about. You'll have to once again get past

Rob Bell's

unbelievably...

Dramatic..

Writing.

But the book certainly won't hurt your faith. It made me want to emphasize God's love more to others I come in contact with, which is of course a great thing. As always with Bell's books, go for the application he is getting at, they are almost always great, just disregard a big chunk of the poetic but sketchy arguments he uses to get to the point.

2nd bookshelf of 5.
[...]