I bring up The Shack
to contrast what I thought of Love Wins
by Rob Bell. While the author of The Shack
was not trying to do any kind of systemic theology, Rob Bell does... well, sort
of... I get the feeling Bell
tries to leave the reader with the feeling that any holes are part of the love
and mystery of God, but I found a lot of the holes in his thinking to be poor
interpretation and commitment to his writing and thoughts. It is not so much
that the book is bad (maybe poor), but I think it is just incomplete. Bell never answers nor
really speaks to the tough questions, and the only conclusion a logical reader
could make is he believes in Universalism (the belief that all will be saved), which is why this book, like The Shack, got a lot of attention. Both
books were controversial but I think this book is more dangerous.
Dangerous? I know, strong words, right? First, Bell does use the Greek
or Hebrews but only in small bits where and when he thinks he will benefit
from using them, never even considering how they may be used elsewhere against
his argument. Bell
never even suggests that believing in hell can still be a valid argument in
Christian circles. Bell
claims that the gospel is freedom and not constraint (Freedom for all, not
merely those who believe). He claims that any God that would send people to
hell and punish them for all eternity is not a loving God, and therefore, not a
God he would nor does believe.
Rob Bell makes no mention that there are a vast amount of
Christians who believe that God neither sends people to hell nor punishes them personally, but
that we send ourselves. I think this is a valid argument, because I believe
going to hell is based on the rejection of Jesus, the rejection of the gospel
message and the light and truth of God that Jesus came to show.
Certainly, there may be some people who never hear about
Jesus. What happens to those people? I believe God will judge them as he sees
fit, in truth I don’t have an answer, but I don’t think it is as easy as saying
they will all simply go to heaven or they will simply all go to hell. Multiple
times in scriptures God says he judges without partiality (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:16-17; 10:16-18; 16:18-20; 2nd Chron. 19:6-7; Mal. 2:8-9; 1st Tim. 5:20-11), so what that judging
means for those that have never heard about God and his son Jesus Christ, I am
not sure... but I am skeptical to jump into Universalism as Bell does in his book or to say they all go to hell.
Plainly, there are descriptions of hell in scripture. Bell tries to explain some
of them away by saying that the references of Jesus were about literal images
of trash heaps outside the city and that Jesus was not using the trash heaps
outside the city as an image or metaphor for the hardship and suffering in
hell. This is my second problem with Bell:
His use of scripture. I have spoken about how he uses the Greek and Hebrew to
benefit his argument but says nothing about how they might go against some of
his thoughts as well. The way Rob Bell uses scripture reminds me of another
book where the author would use (some may say twist) scripture to his purpose. While I did like the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge, Eldredge
at times used scripture in a way that disturbed me:
The Lord is a warrior;
the Lord is his name. - Exodus 15:3
Eldredge Says:
Man is a Warrior;
man is his name.
(You can tell why that bothered me) But Eldredge forgets:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and
stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not
willing. - Matthew 23:37
My problem is that while I do agree men have a tendency in
the way we were created to be masculine and strong, even by the words of
Christ, we have places where images of nurturing and caring come alongside,
giving us a more complete image of God, and of ourselves, male and female.
Similarly, I think there are many more complexities that Bell glances over in his book. (1) He never plainly says he believes in Universalism but alludes to this. (2) He only plainly says hell exists here because of sin (abuse, murder, greed, etc.). He seems to allude to the fact that there may be a literal hell but it is more like what one would think of purgatory. However, instead of working and suffering because of ones sins, it is a place where everyone is held until the love of God finally overwhelms them and they decided to become part of the Kingdom of God. (3) Bell's conception of heaven is also fluid, as he says the city of heaven has gates, so while people may come into the city from the maybe hell/purgatory, those who rebel in heaven may also leave. Which begs the question: If God's love is so wonderful to accept someone from hell/purgatory and they can come into heaven, why in the world would someone in heaven reject or rebel against God? If this is the case, it seems that sin and evil have not been erased in the end and humanity is still struggling to be with God and for God to be with his people (Rev. 21:1-5).
Similarly, I think there are many more complexities that Bell glances over in his book. (1) He never plainly says he believes in Universalism but alludes to this. (2) He only plainly says hell exists here because of sin (abuse, murder, greed, etc.). He seems to allude to the fact that there may be a literal hell but it is more like what one would think of purgatory. However, instead of working and suffering because of ones sins, it is a place where everyone is held until the love of God finally overwhelms them and they decided to become part of the Kingdom of God. (3) Bell's conception of heaven is also fluid, as he says the city of heaven has gates, so while people may come into the city from the maybe hell/purgatory, those who rebel in heaven may also leave. Which begs the question: If God's love is so wonderful to accept someone from hell/purgatory and they can come into heaven, why in the world would someone in heaven reject or rebel against God? If this is the case, it seems that sin and evil have not been erased in the end and humanity is still struggling to be with God and for God to be with his people (Rev. 21:1-5).
Overall, this book great for debate. It is a quick
read, mostly because Bell
spaces every one phrase to every three sentences, otherwise the book would
likely only be 75-100 pages. I believe it is also short because Bell does not complete
his arguments nor really answers any arguments from the other side, except to
say how wrong and judgmental and non-freeing they are for believing in the
concept of hell. For the ease of reading and alluding to his point of
Universalism, I give it 4 out of 5; however, for poor theology and use
of interpretation and debate, I give Love
Wins a 3 out of 5.
Have you read the book? What were/are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts of heaven, hell, and purgatory?
What are your thoughts on Universalism?
Next up, I will be reading Francis Chan's Book in contrast
to Bell's book
called Erasing Hell.
~ Daniel Brockhan
Books:
Love Wins by Rob Bell
The Shack by Paul Young
Wild At Heart by John Eldredge
The Screwtape Letter by C.S. Lewis
The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis
God Wins: A Critique of Rob Bell's Love Wins by: Patrick Zukera
