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
First, I love you brother and miss you like a fat kid misses cake (revised version of a rap lyric by 50 cent). I wonder if anyone has ever cited a rap lyric in Turabian...?
ReplyDeleteI'm excited you read the book. I have handed out copies to some other friends these past few months. Their responses have been generally in line with yours here.
1. No book should be labeled dangerous, especially by Christians. The Bible is the only book with real power. All others are just words on pages. People give the words their dangerous power.
2. I wonder what you call people who believe Jesus redeemed the whole world when he died on the cross, but also believe there may be other language to describe love, God, Truth. Is that a universalist?
3. Speculation about the end times is just that. I am reading through Corninthians right now and Paul talks about judgement being God's.
1. No book should be labeled dangerous, especially by Christians. The Bible is the only book with real power. All others are just words on pages. People give the words their dangerous power.
Delete- It isnt that I think his ideas are dangerous, concerned might have been a better word (but didnt seem to have the same strength behind it), but I think the way he uses scripture is dangerous, meaning I think there are certain ways that one should twist scripture. I am fine with different interpretations but not some of them that begin to twist, and that was the feeling I got reading his book. It started out small, but I just felt over and over he kept using scripture in a way I could never do myself. So, I guess the greater question here is: Are there times we draw the line at someone interpretation of scripture or are all interpretation acceptable. Certinaly, I am open to all discussion and ideas, but publishing a book is different. Plus, like I said, I think he doesnt develop his ideas. I can understand Universalism, I just think he doesnt dive in deep enough.
2. I wonder what you call people who believe Jesus redeemed the whole world when he died on the cross, but also believe there may be other language to describe love, God, Truth. Is that a universalist?
- I spoke to that somewhat in my review. what happens to others? Those who never hear Jesus? I dont know, I cant say they all go to hell but I dont think I can say they all go to heaven, at least with 100% certanity from a scriptural standpoint. I think Jesus doed to provide a way out, a way to heaven, but I do not think it means everyone goes there. I talked about this on sunday in my SS group. We assume everyone "wants" to go to heaven, but we may be wrong. If everyone automatically goes to heaven or hell, there is no choice, so is there still love? ... Just some thoughts.
3. Speculation about the end times is just that. I am reading through Corninthians right now and Paul talks about judgement being God's.
- Yes, I dont really know what is going to happen in the end, but I dont think bell really decided anything here. I wish he would develop his ideas and thoughts, brinign up the strengths and weaknesses. My problem is he seems to think those who believe differently than him simply dont see God as loving or freeing, I disagree. I also dont think my opinion of bell is the "right" one, it is my opinion based on who I am and my expereinces, my lens, which is different from Bell or you or anyone else. i am ok with that. I still think Bell writes from a good place... I just think he stops short of what could have been a much better book, one I would have recommended if it was more developed.
p.s. - replied from work, no spell check, sry for any errors, ha ha ;.)
~ Daniel Brockhan
p.s.s. - miss you too buddy! :.)
DeleteDaniel – some thoughts for your spare time :-)…
ReplyDeleteFirst, as one who takes the ‘soul’ of theology to be good hermeneutics and exegesis, the main thing about Bell’s book that bothered me was his exegesis – which was strange for me because Velvet Elvis was so good in exegesis. I should say that this is not to voice immediate disagreement with Bell’s thesis (nor immediate agreement), just that even sound theological ends do not justify poor hermeneutical means.
Second, on Gehenna as ‘city dump’; the evidence is paltry here though he seems to be (poorly) parroting N.T. Wright in ‘Surprised by Hope’ here. I don’t remember if Wright provides a footnote here but Scot McKnight thinks the earliest the city dump analogy comes in is the 12th century. Of course ancient cities were known to have something akin to sewers and even dumps, but there is no real evidence that the one outside Jerusalem was linked to Gehenna. So, it may be a possibility, but one “without ancient support” as scholars say. What is more certain in the 1st century context is its association with evil acts of idolatry and even child sacrifice and as a result divine judgment. Now, those who see hell as eternal conscious torment (ECT) shouldn’t get to excited here for support unless they want to press for some sort of double fulfillement beyond the AD70 context – which is doubtful from an exegetical point of view. To make the ECT point here (and any place in the Gospels especially) one must read later (medieval?) theology back into the text. See this link from McKnight on all this (and read the comments at the bottom): http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/04/11/exploring-love-wins-5/
Third, allow me a critique of your review in that I think you are bit unfair to Bell in two places. The first is in seemingly judging Bell too much on SYSTEMATIC theology grounds. You note that ‘The Shack’ wasn’t an attempt at systematic theology, but that Bell “does … well, sort of.” That’s just it, while Bell is certainly theological (and a lot of philosophical), I don’t think he is trying to be as systematic as most think he is – or think he should be. He’s certainly trying to be exegetical and hermeneutical and there is critique to be offered here.
Fourth, the other place where I think you’re unfair is in calling Bell a universalist and saying that any logical person will necessarily make the same judgment. I agree here with McKnight that Bell cannot be a universalist if he is as committed to freedom (and the kind of freedom he espouses) as he says he is. I regard his book as the logical outworking of libertarian free will. Universalism says we can know that ALL WILL be saved, but with Bells view of freedom we can’t know this. What Bell does advocate is so-called ‘second chances’ and what he denies is ECT (which gets conservative traditionalists in an uproar with the tweets to show for it). See this link here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/04/13/exploring-love-wins-6/
Part 1 of 2: Continued...
Reply:
Delete(1)Exactly, it is not that I dont think there is backing for his idea, I just do not think he did a good job and didnt develop his ideas and his books like he could have.
(2)See, I heard that the image came from the time of Christ and not the midedle ages, so if you are right, putting that image into what Jesus said is not good hermanutics in my opinion.
(3)You are right, he is doing theology, but it isnt systamatic; however, in comparison to The Shack, he is certainly doing a book more about theology directly, instead of how The Shack did it indirectly through story alone. but your right, I mis-typed there.
(4)That is what confused me a bit too, so you are right. A true Universlaist would say we all just go to haven, but bell seems to say that some will go to hell, they just have the oppurtunity to go to haven later. In addition, apparently those in heaven may chose to leave or may be kicked out (if the gates do indeed swing both ways). Good point!
~ Daniel B.
Part 2 of 2 from above...
ReplyDeleteFifth, dangerous? Really? And you rated it only a 3 out of 5? I’m asking seriously here, not just being snarky. Why is he deemed dangerous? I wouldn’t call either ‘The Shack’ or ‘Love Wins’ dangerous. If Bell is dangerous then is Gregory of Nyssa (who has universalistic tendencies though remains agnostic), or N.T. Wright on whom Bell implicitly seems to draw, or Karl Barth (the Reformed theologian whom many have said is a universalist though he denied it himself), or even C.S. Lewis? I contend that there is not a single controversial thing Bell said that cannot also be found as a possibility in Lewis (and that the war against it was completely unwarranted). See this link here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/03/23/rob-bell-and-c-s-lewis-by-jeff-cook/
Sixth, I agree with Eugene Peterson that evangelicals need to do a lot of re-examining of hell and damnation. To many on all sides need to be more exegetically careful and not take things out of context. The questions Bell raises are important ones and we do best not to dismiss them as many in the neo-Reformed/TGC world have done. I wish they would listen to Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Seminary, and Reformed himself, when he says, “Why don’t folks who criticize Rob Bell for wanting to let too many people in also go after people like that who want to keep too many people out? Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess?” And we do well to expand our available options beyond merely universalism vs ECT. See links here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/03/19/rob-bell-reviews/ and here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/03/02/waiting-for-rob-bell/
Seventh, I found the Chan/Sprinkle book to be unsatisfactory as well. See this introductory piece here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/05/25/jeff-cook-to-francis-chan/ and the four part review at Jesus Creed here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/07/13/review-of-francis-chan-erasing-hell-by-jeff-cook/ here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/07/20/erasing-hell-jeff-cook-2/ here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/08/03/erasing-hell-might-makes-right-jeff-cook/ and here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/08/22/erasing-hell-the-unavoidable-role-of-the-intellect-jeff-cook/ I thought these might be of use to you as you do your review of the book.
Eighth, if one wants to know where I land, it would be pretty close to N.T. Wright (who by the way doesn’t deny hell either) but also somewhat agnostic on this issue. I am for sure that the centrality it has in evangelicalism is a mistake and a sure sign that the gospel has been made a commodity and eternal hell is the emotional hook to get people to make a ‘decision’. I will just note here that the notion of hell is strangely absent from the gospeling and evangelism we see from Jesus and the apostles. They’re message wasn’t “save yourself from hell” but “the Kingdom is at hand, repent and you can be a participant of it.” There is a new heavens and new earth theology at work that while not eclipsing the theme of judgment (which doesn’t require ECT itself) still retains the central place.
Just a note: all these links are just fyi and my way of citing on the internet. They are there for more info if you want/need it or have free time and are bored. Along these lines some of the best discussions I’ve seen about universalism and hell come from Scot McKnight’s ‘Jesus Creed’ blog here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/category/universalism/ and here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/category/hell/ You will also find here review’s of Ed Fudge’s decade long work/research on hell.
The peace of our liberating King Jesus to you this week.
(5) It wasnt that I think Bell is dangerous or the idea of Universalism is dangerous, but I think some of the ways he misuses (or twists) scripture is dangerous. Stating it made me concerned might have been better, but I didnt think it had the same weight to it as the word dangerous... ha ha, but I did think about changing that word.
Delete(6) Good point. in the end, if God wants to be that gracious and loving that is awesome, but I just dont see that reality suppored, in my opinion, in scripture. Now, if we didnt see sin as an issue, discipline, or judgement as much in scripture I would say fine, God may do such a thing, but after looking at the whole of the scriptures, I just dont come to that conclusion. however, as I said in my review, I do think God judges without partiality, so some may be judged where they were at, if they did not hear about Jesus. But I struggle to say they are all going to hell or they are all going to haven. I just dont know and cant really say either and it be supported by scripture.
(7)I may review Erasing hell as well after i read it, so we will see! :.)
(8)I was thinking along those lines when Bell was quoting some scriptures. My only question is: If we are not a part of the Kingdom, then what? If not hell, then what happens? I might be able to change to some idea or purgatory but I have a hard time with one option being presented, then there has to be a non-option, so if the Kingdom, then there is a not-the kingdom, if good, then a not-good, does that make sense? Of course, maybe that is my problem with my finite little mind, trying to put God into a box. Of course, I am not so concerned that my ideas about hell or ehevane may chnage over time, so much as i am concerned with making sure these ideas have a scriptural core and foundation... otherwise, I wouldnt be Christian, right? i would just believe something else.
* sry for any spelling/grammatical erros, I typed this at work during lunch and there is not spell check in text boxes.