A Brief Review of Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

Well I recently read through Rob Bell's Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived--the most controversial Christian book for...err..probably the next two or three months (after which time we'll have something else to argue about).

It's stirred up more controversy and media attention that I think anyone anticipated, and yet, honestly, I thought that Bell has written more compelling stuff than this (anyone remember Velvet Elvis?).  As promised in this title, I'll try to keep this a brief review.  (Click HERE for another very helpful review from Relevant Magazine.)

Bell got lots of media attention as well as the stink eye from several conservative evangelicals for seeming to promote "universalism"--or what some mean by the term "universalism."  Basically Bell caused an uproar because, as some claim, he says that everyone will end up turning to God for salvation in the end.  Is this accusation valid, though?

The short answer is, "yes"; the longer answer is, "well, kinda."  The critical answer is: Bell is not very consistent with himself throughout even this one book.

This is my main critique: Although Bell is a thoughtful communicator, with a pastor's heart, and a love for the scriptures, he simply does not think very carefully.  He spends the majority of the book building a case that essentially says that, in the end--at the very ultimate end of all things--all people will finally desire to choose God and will thus be saved (which is at least one way of defining "universalism," though not the way I'm sure Bell would define it).  Then the very last brief chapter is all about a call for urgency in the present--today is the day of salvation!  ...or is it tomorrow?  ...two hundred years down the road?  ...a few millennia from now?  Bell is inconsistent here.  The vast majority of his book screams--though not always in so many words (he is an elusive writer)--'God will win us all back in the end!'  But the final appeal is: 'Accept the Gospel now!'  Bell ends his book by saying that "Jesus reminds us in a number of ways that it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine." (p.197)  They do?  How much does my decision to reject Jesus now really matter if I know that in the end everyone is necessarily going to come to accept him?  At best this is simply naivete; at worst it is a very misleading notion about God's love and human freedom.  As Bell tries to affirm throughout his book, God grants us the freedom to reject him.  Bell wants to suggest, however, that none of us will reject him forever.  How truly meaningful is my acceptance or rejection of Christ (and how real is my freedom) now if in the end we all know that we're all going to accept him?  It seems to me like Bell recognized that you simply cannot get around the call to urgent repentance when considering Jesus' message--"Repent and believe the good news, for the kingdom of heaven is near!"  His whole book works against this urgent appeal, however, making the last chapter sound very forced and fake.  'It is urgent that you accept Christ,' says Bell, 'but if you don't, you'll get do-overs for the rest of eternity.'  What part of this message do you think will stick in the listener's ears?

A praise for Bell, then:  One very important pastoral and theological point that Bell makes throughout the book is stated clearly here: "To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God." (p.59)  Bell wants to get away from the narrow definition of eternal life as "what we get when we die."  No, says Bell.  Eternal life is what Christ offers to us here and now, and it will extend throughout eternity.  But it begins now.  Well put!  This is much the point that I think C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce (which, also to his credit, Bell cites at the end of the book, in the Further Reading section) was written to make.  As Bell says elsewhere, ultimately "we get what we want. . . .  If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours." (p.116, 118)  Heaven and hell are not simply two desinations: they are two ways of living that begin here and now and are embraced by each and every step we take in this life.  I can thoroughly affirm this.

On a different note, Bell tries to call the tradition of the church to his aid throughout the central 'argument' (if there is a central argument) of the book.  For instance, he writes: "In the third century the church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen affirmed reconciliation with all people.  In the fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius believed this as well.  In their day, Jerome claimed that 'most people,' Basil said the 'mass of men,' and Augustine acknowledged that 'very many' believed in the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God.  Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn't bring glory to God. . . .  To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God's pursuit forever, because God's love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts."  (p.107-108)  Bell attempts to paint a picture of a "wide stream" of orthodoxy embracing the basic stance he takes in his book--namely that no one will choose hell forever, and eventually God will win us all back.  This is simply not true.  Once again, Bell is at best naive here, and at worst ingenuous.  The fact of the matter is that none of the Church Fathers he has here mentioned (and mentioned only in the briefest of passing, without any citation whatsoever) would affirm Bell's stance in this book.  The notions that Bell is suggesting in this book are almost exclusively products of the modern era (the past 250 years or so), and while that should not cause us to dismiss Bell's argument, the fact of the matter is that he cannot call the "wide stream" of orthodoxy to his aid here.  Anyone who has taken an introductory course in historical theology could affirm as much.  Augustine and Rob Bell do not say the same thing--believe me.

Another praise for Bell, then.  At one point he comments: "[I]t is our responsibility to be extremely careful about making negative, decisive, lasting judgments about people's eternal destinies." (p.160)  I want to affirm this point and say that many of us have speculated in this area far too much.  Whenever we speak about the eternal destiny of a person, we usurp the judgment seat of Christ and attempt to place ourselves upon it.  Christians may certainly have a measure of certainty concerning their own ultimate salvation, and those who overtly reject Christ and his kingdom throughout their lives may certainly earn our disapproval, but to make final judgments about anyone's eternal destiny is idolatry.  We set ourselves on Christ's judgment seat when we do this, and in dethroning him we only call down judgment upon ourselves.  Let us never forget the simple words of Christ: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  A huge warning to us disciples if ever there was one.

Finally, let me also say that while I have some significant reservations about this book, I am always thrilled to read Bell because I will always find an attempt to actively dialog with the scriptures.  This is my highest praise for Bell: he seriously wrestles with the Bible.  For this reason, I would be willing to dialog with him about anything.  If he wants to suggest universalism (or whatever he wants to call it)--fine, let's talk about it, so long as he is dedicated to remaining faithful to the scriptures.  I do not think that Bell is always the best interpreter of scripture (some of his Greek and Hebrew word studies in this book were really off the wall, in all honesty), but the fact that he still feels strongly about being in dialog with the scriptures is very encouraging to me.

I hope you'll take time to read the book when you get a chance; and I welcome a continued dialog about it in the comments section below.  Thanks!