Review:
Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell,
and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived
Rob Bell
HarperOne, 2011
198 pp; pb.
Rob Bell has always been an innovator. He began questioning the traditional way of doing church during his seminary days at Fuller Theological Seminary, and in preaching class he was always looking for new and different ways of communicating the message. He eventually became the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, MI. By 2011 the church was getting between 8,000 and 10,000 in attendance on Sundays, and Time Magazine named him as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. Love Wins is his fifth book.
 |
| Rob Bell at the Time 100 gala |
And what a controversial book it is! Mr. Bell pretty much rejects the orthodox understanding of the gospel, arguing that both hell and the atonement are metaphors.
Mr. Bell begins his book by quoting John 3:16:
"That's the story,
'For God so loved the world . . .'
That's why Jesus came.
That's his message.
That's where the life is found." (p. vii).
He then goes on to say that the orthodox view that some go to heaven and others go to hell 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" (p. viii). He emphatically denies the idea of eternal punishment. He says that God loves us unconditionally, and says that
"Our trusting,
our change of heart,
our believing God's version of our story
doesn't bring it into existence,
make it happen, or create it." (p. 188).
But what really was Jesus' message? Significantly Mr. Bell did not quote the second half of that most famous verse: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (NKJV). The verse, in fact, says something quite different from what Mr. Bell would have us to believe.
The verse does, of course, state that God loves the world. But how does God express that love? By giving His only begotten Son. And why did He do that? So that we "should not perish but have everlasting life," a reference back to Daniel 12:2. And what must we do in order to receive "everlasting life"? We must "believe in Him."
The context of the verse makes its meaning clear. The world is under "condemnation" because "the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest their deeds should be exposed" (vv. 19,20). As a result, "he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (v. 36). In other words, God is most definitely angry with us because of our sin and rebellion, and that is why we need an atonement, which God Himself provided in His Son, Who was "lifted up" (v. 14) – and allusion to the crucifixion. And thus the necessary precondition for salvation is clear: Christ is the Savior; we must believe on Him.
Mr. Bell, in developing his theory of universal love and salvation, passes over in silence a great deal of what he Bible says on the subject. He chose not to discuss the holiness of God, the justice of God, or the wrath of God. He does not mention the last judgment. Hell and the atonement, as we have seen, he treats as metaphors. And he nowhere does he answer the question of what happens to people when they die.
For all practical purposes Mr. Bell is a theological liberal with a repackaged version of "the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." And his theology contains the fatal weakness of all liberal theology. By cherry picking texts of scripture and treating others as metaphor, he is, in effect, superimposing on the Bible his own perceived notions about God. But in the end all he has to show for his efforts is a theology he made up himself. In the final analysis it is nothing but an exercise in self-delusion.
When it comes to the questions of life after death, of heaven and hell and the way of salvation, we are completely dependent upon what God has told us in His Word. We have no other avenue of knowledge about these things. The warnings of Scripture need to be taken seriously, for they come from God Himself. We ignore them at our own peril. We need to look at all that the Bible says on the subject, and not just cherry-pick the ones that suit our fancies. Mr. Bell can do better than that!
Related articles:
The Problem with Liberal Theology
Letter to a Unitarian Minster
By cherry picking texts of scripture and treating others as metaphor, he is, in effect, superimposing on the Bible his own perceived notions about God.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's a good thing you'd never do that.
...we are completely dependent upon what God has told us...
Excellent. Direct communication is going to solve a lot of these thorny dispute on the meani...
...in His Word.
Oh darn.
If I'm honest with reality I would never consciously try to do that. I would only be deluding myself, and suffer the eternal consequences.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm honest with reality I would never consciously try to do that.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that you personally believe that. It's just that, subconsiously, it happens to good, well-meaning people all the time. If it can happen to them then you have to acknowledge that it could happen to you.
I'm sure you are not claiming to be perfect.
Therefore, as an honest person, you have to come up with a mechanism that would automatically short-circuit any subconsious "stacking of the deck".
Assurances that you don't do that are worthless.
You own personal sense of self confidence that you don't do that are worthless.
Scientists have this problem all the time, which is why they've developed protocols when it comes to setting up experiments or making observations.
They recognise the problem and, as part of their training, they do something about it.
This makes it easy to examine the methodology of an experiment and spot any possible serious flaws.
Relgious apologists (and I mean religious-not just Christian) don't have that.
It's all purely subjective.
"Bob, in developing his theory of "X", passes over in silence a great deal of what he Bible says on the subject. He chose not to discuss the "x" of God, the "Y" of God, or the "Z" of God. He does not mention the part about the "x" . (Insert famous bible story here), as we have seen, he treats as metaphors. And he nowhere does he answer the question of what happens to "X".
For all practical purposes Bob is a theological (insert label) with a repackaged version of "(insert title)." And his theology contains the fatal weakness of all (insert label) theology. By cherry picking texts of scripture and treating others as metaphor, he is, in effect, superimposing...."
It's not your conclusions you have to worry about, it's your methodology.
Whatever you write, whatever approach you take, first place it in the mind of the "the other guy" who despises you and rants and raves through his spittle-flecked beard. If he can still say it using only different labels, then that should give you pause.
You have put your finger on the central problem facing modern civilization -- is it possible to know "truth"? Our post-modernist friends would say, no, it is not. All "knowledge," in the end, is subjective and self-serving.
ReplyDeleteBut there is a huge difference between saying that we cannot know the truth perfectly, and that it doesn't exist at all.
Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God exists. He is infinite, eternal, self existent. His creation reflects His wisdom and power. But I am finite, limited in knowledge, and subject to human passion and prejudice. I cannot know God perfectly as He is. So my knowledge of Him and His creation is imperfect and distorted.
On the other hand, let us say that God does not exist. Reality came about through a blind, impersonal natural process. Strictly speaking there is no "reason" or "purpose" for anything. Things just happen for no particular reason at all. In this scenario there is no "truth" -- just our own fictions and myths - tales we tell ourselves to satisfy some inward psychological need we have to feel important. In the end it is all self-delusion.
Tildeb had a link on "Questionable Motives" to an article by Stephen Pinker that views the issue from a scientific perspective. He, of course, would like to think that the modern, secular, "scientific" worldview is a marvelous thing, and he has nothing but scorn and contempt for post-modernism. But in the end his worldview is barely distinguishable from their's.
You have put your finger on the central problem facing modern civilization -- is it possible to know "truth"?
ReplyDeleteAre you doing your "I think the real question is" thing again?
But there is a huge difference between saying that we cannot know the truth perfectly, and that it doesn't exist at all.
Um, who said this? Certainly not me.
Let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that God exists.
I have a better idea. How about you switch the labels around and walk a mile in the other guy's shoes? Try it for yourself. Don't change a thing. Just repeat what you wrote (exactly) only with a different label.
On the other hand, let us say that God does not exist. Reality came about through...
False Dichotomy.
But in the end his worldview is barely distinguishable from their's.
I don't see it myself. If you want to demonstrate that it is so then, by all means do so. Let's start with smallpox.