Rob Bell is Not A Universalist, and Love Really Does Win
Books, Featured — By Emily Timbol on March 17, 2011 at 8:00 am
It says a lot about the state of Christianity, that a 9.0 earthquake and devastating tsunami hit Japan last week, yet all we want to talk about is whether or not Rob Bell is going to hell.
It says even more that many of the people initially claiming he was, (or at least bidding him farewell) hadn’t even read his book. Well, I read it. And I’d like to clear some things up.
Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, And The Fate Of Every Person Who Ever Lived, does not make any claims that reduce the power of Jesus’ death on the cross. It does not deny the existence of hell, nor does it deny the existence of heaven. It does not make claims that any person who isn’t deeply rooted in the idea of a vengeful, vindictive, angry God should be unnerved by. Rather, using scripture (lots and lots of scripture) and historical context, it seeks to solidify and better define these realities of heaven and hell. Rob Bell doesn’t deny hell; he’s trying to warn us not to go there.
Where things get tricky, is where, “there” is. According to Bell,
“Hell is our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story.”
and
“We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting that love, which creates what we call hell.”
and
“…that’s what we find in Jesus’ teaching about hell – a volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors that describe the very real experience and consequences of rejecting our God-given goodness and humanity. “
You probably noticed that those descriptions of hell don’t point to a place. There is no literal fire, no pitchforks, and to paraphrase Bell, no horned man listening to Pink Floyd albums backwards, standing guard. It’s not the hell we grew up fearful of, and Bell argues, not the hell Jesus warned of in Matthew 5. These aren’t wild unsubstantiated claims that Bell makes, but ones rooted in the historical meaning of the Greek and Hebrew translations of the actual words Jesus used to describe hell, and the words used to describe hell in every mention of it in the Old Testament scriptures.
Make no mistake, Bell doesn’t shirk away from the Bible in this book, he relies heavily on it. His interpretation of scripture might make people uncomfortable, but to claim he is anything other than Biblically-based, is blatantly untrue.
Bell warns us of hell, not to scare us into believing in Christ, which he (rightfully) says does not paint an accurate picture of the gospel, but because when we turn away from hell, we get closer to seeing heaven come to Earth.
Heaven. Because after all, it’s not just the book’s take on hell that is causing people to tweet Bell goodbye. It’s his take on heaven. How could a view of heaven cause so much controversy? Well he says things like this:
“The dominant cultural assumptions and misunderstandings about heaven have been at work for so long, it’s almost automatic for many to think of heaven as ethereal, intangible, esoteric, and immaterial…somewhere else…but for Jesus, heaven is more real than what we experience now. This is true for the future, when Earth and heaven become one, but also for today.”
Heaven when we die, but heaven also….today? No wonder the blogosphere has been so active. To believe what Bell claims, that heaven isn’t just a where but also a when, forces us to stop focusing purely on our reward in the afterlife. Instead, it causes us to think about how we’re bringing heaven to Earth, now. It’s a little scary, to put it mildly.
Not that he claims that there isn’t a heaven we will go to to be with Christ someday after we’re dead. Bell uses a beautiful analogy to try and explain what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 13, by saying that on Earth, it’s as if we’re trying to play the piano while wearing oven mitts. The elements for heaven are all here, but there’s something in the way inhibiting us from fully experiencing the beauty of the song (I interpret that inhibitor as sin.) We’re not going to fully be able to see (hear) the beauty of that song until we’re with Jesus.
You would think that with all that discussion of Heaven and Hell, no one would still be claiming that Rob Bell is touting Universalism in this book. Just in case anyone needs extra convincing, he says:
“When we say yes to God, when we open ourselves to Jesus’ living, giving act on the cross, we enter in to a way of life. He is the source, the strength, the example, and the assurance that this pattern and rebirth is the way into the only kind of life that actually sustains and inspires.”
Rob Bell is not a Universalist.
He’s a pastor of a church that preaches the Bible, follows Christ’s teachings, and seeks to honor God. The fact that this well-written and compelling book caused the level of outrage and horror that it did, before it was even read, says more about our Christian culture than it does the man who wrote the book. If Christians are so scared of anything that questions the status quo, that they can’t even wait to see what one of their brothers say before they condemn him, what kind of witness does that present to the world? What kind of God does that portray?
The kind of God that Bell warns us against worshiping. Not the true God. Not the one who loved us enough to die for us. Not the one who conquered death, with love.
Because let’s not forget, Rob Bell wasn’t the first person who made a bold statement that love wins. God did – when Christ died on the cross.
Tags: Christianity, Heaven, Hell, John Piper, Love Wins, Rob Bell, Theology, Universalism
34 Comments
I believe the Universalism claims come from the promo clip, so it’s perfectly valid to response to it without having read the book. The clip features Bell himself, not his words filtered through someone else. In said clip, Bell specifically:
1. acts surprised that anyone would say that Gandhi, who publicly acknowledged he was not a Christian, would not have eternal life.
2. twists the words of those who believe in a literal hell by using the old trick of “if you believe x, then you really mean y”.
Some folks have clearly been out of line in the things they have said about Bell in the last 2 weeks, but publicly disagreeing with the theology that Bell espouses is certainly warranted. I see no reason why anyone would have a problem with Bell saying most Christians (who believe in an eternal hell) are wrong, then say that nobody should say that Bell is wrong.
From what you say here (still haven’t read the book), Rob’s interpretation of hell sounds very similar to C.S. Lewis’ description of it in The Great Divorce. And like Lewis, it sounds like Bell is making the point that hell is more self-inflicted than anything else. It is something we choose and in a way even create when we reject Christ.
I’m not inclined to be dogmatic about it at this point in my life and studies, but this interpretation certainly resonates with me. And i’m not at all surprised to find out that Bell doesn’t fall into any of the recognizably universalist categories.
I think you’re right about his ties to C.S. Lewis beliefs on hell. In the appendix he lists some books that people should read to learn more about heaven and hell, and the Great Divorce was one of them.
I haven’t read the book; I have watched the initial video, read many reviews, and seen a couple of Bell interviews about the book.
I’m a little confused, though, about the comparison to The Great Divorce. I understand that the idea that hell is self-inflicted being similar, but The Great Divorce was written expressly to combat the idea that everyone eventually gets to heaven and that hell is temporary or non-existent. Given that their fundamental positions seem in opposition to each other, it seems odd to use Lewis to try to lend validity to Bell. I’m even more confused, if as Emily has said, Bell tries to link them, as Lewis was both much more precise than Bell generally is and very opposed to what Bell seems to be purporting, be it somewhat nebulously.
Well done Emily, a succinct and interesting review, can’t wait to read the book now.
I have to begin by saying that I have yet to read Bell’s book. It’s on my list to pick up though.
My major concerns lie with Bell’s advertisement video, where he not only misrepresents historically Christian perspectives on perdition, but even goes so far as to imply that somebody who has lived as well as Ghandi must surely be saved. At that point, he is either a legalist (meaning that Ghandi’s merit afforded him his salvation), or a universalist (a term that no longer needs defining). But I’m even more uncomfortable to hear that Bell cites the Great Divorce, a piece of popular fiction, in a theological context. Last time I checked, Lewis was a medieval scholar….not a seminary trained theologian.
All that to say, it looks like Bell’s book is moving up on my reading list over Spring Break
I find it interesting that you would simultaneously tout the concept of a “seminary trained theologian” as the pinnacle of authority on these matters and discredit “a piece of popular fiction” as having no relevance to the discussion. First of all, I believe that both Lewis’ fiction and his non-fiction are held in very high esteem throughout the protestant Christian world so implying that his fiction would somehow disagree with his “theology” is quite a bold assertion; I think you have much of the church to argue with there. Secondly, wasn’t it the “seminary trained theologians” that Jesus had to constantly remind of their hypocrisy? Wasn’t it the “seminary trained theologians” who eventually got so angered by Jesus’ radical message that they had him killed? It would do us all some good to remember that we are a kingdom of priests and there are no gurus when it comes to daily following Jesus. Perhaps we should think a little less of the seminary training and a little more of the Spirit speaking through art such as Lewis’ fiction.
Jesus used fiction to teach theology, Lewis was doing the same. I can’t imagine anyone reading The Great Divorce and thinking it was just meant to be some interesting fiction, unless you think the same of Pilgrim’s Progress.
And seminary training is entirely tangential to being a respected and reputable theologian.
John & Nathan:
You are correct in pointing out that Matt erred when he dissed Lewis and “The Great Divorce”. But his main point was spot-on. Jesus specifically said that many people will do good things, even spiritual things, and be shocked to hear “Depart from me, evildoers, I never knew you.” Whether Gandhi is in heaven or hell right now depends entirely on whether or not he was saved, and his salvation cannot possibly have been because he was a good man and did good works (See Eph 2:8). The fact that Bell opens up his video with his dispute of this very point is, I think, how he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. The fact that anyone is surprised that his Gandhi statement alone resulted in a backlash is, well, surprising.
Emily,
I’m working through the book and posting a chapter by chapter review of at http://www.larryshallenberger.com.
Pastor Bell does not self-identify as a universalist. But he does suggest that people may repent from their ways and leave hell post-death. It’s not classic universalism but on the wider-grace doctrinal spectrum.
I’m midway through the book and I would agree that Pastor Bell does not shrink from using the Bible. Lots of it. However, I’m struggling with the uneven quality of his exegetical work. I’m seeing some leaps in logic.
Teachers often require students to “show their math” on an exam. I wish that Rob would do that more as he does his Biblical surveys. I know that this is book for a popular audience and that a methodical Biblical study would be often technical and bog down the pace of the book.
But without this, and with what feels like suspect methodology, I think this book falls short.
There is much to be commended in the book even though I find myself disagreeing often. He’s brilliant writer and even though I find myself agreeing with his central premises, there’s much we agree on as well.
Larry, you said something that popped into my head as well: just because Bell’s work “relies heavily” on the Bible doesn’t mean he’s any good at hermeneutics. Even the health-and-wealth pastors could direct us to a hundred verses in order to prove their points.
Jim,
I DO have concerns about his hermeneutics, however I don’t want to be dismissive either. The genre of the book doesn’t allow for the detailed, slow work that needs to be done. I wonder if he wouldn’t release a pdf of his research sometime. This book is obviously the product of much thought and homework– but like every sermon the tedium is hidden so main points can shine.
There’s also the hermeneutic loop. Every interpreter brings beliefs, philosophies, pre-conceptions that color the interpretive process which intern shapes the original set up beliefs. It’s possible that my traditions prevent me from seeing scripture as well as Bell. And the reserve is true also.
I love how everyone got worked up about the video — when all he does is ask questions. Bell’s comment on MSNBC was perfect, about how everyone is uncomfortable to even have the discussion. It seems like many people would rather dismiss the book and him outright because of uncomfortable questions in a video (which he didn’t answer) than actually read it to hear how he engages the questions with discussion and answers. Thanks, Emily, for being above the fold, and not “reviewing a book by it’s cover”, or “video” in this case.
Gotta hand it to Rob Bell though — from a marketing perspective, he nailed it! (Bad press is better than no press, right?)
I disagree with your first sentence for two reasons:
1. Everyone is not “worked up.” This is type of phrase serves to dismiss legitimate concerns of people who are simply disagreeing with Bell. Since much of Bell’s main point is that he disagrees with what many Christians think, then anyone who allows Bell to express disagreement should be ready to allow others to do the same.
2. “All he does is ask questions”. This is simply incorrect. I’ve been hearing it since the beginning of this Bell drama 2 or 3 weeks ago, and it’s simply wrong. Bell isn’t stopping at asking questions. He’s taking a stand, and backing it up. Even he admits that he’s not just asking questions. Why his defenders keep saying this is beyond me.
James, your posts are often reasonable and I commend you for that even though I disagree with almost everything you say. However, in this instance I am going to have to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Yes, Bell is making statements and backing them up, however that is not what went on in the marketing video. In the video he merely asked questions and stated that those questions would form the topic for his book. He did not take a stance one way or the other in the video. Furthermore, Bell wasn’t even expressing disagreement with the statement about Ghandi, just doubt regarding its veracity and the likelyhood that the person who wrote the note could possibly know what they said for certain. To stand up and try to argue with someone before they even state their position shows that one is looking for a fight instead of the truth.
Ryan, I respectfully disagree. I saw the clip a number of times, and I am being honest about what I saw. He made his position known in the tone he used and the way he asked his statements, which were disguised as questions.
Here’s an example, from the clip:
“”Millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. So what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. How could that God ever be good? … And how could that ever be good news?”
You can’t tell me that’s an open-ended question. He is stating his belief that eternal hell is in conflict with a good God. He is entitled to do so, of course. But doing so negates the defense that he is merely asking questions.
He isn’t stating that eternal hell is in conflict with a good God. Nowhere in the video does he come out and say that. He says that the mainstream Christian message makes it sound that way, big difference. Also, since he doesn’t answer his admittedly loaded questions at the end he could really be intending to go in any direction with it. The issue I take with much of the “Rob Bell Hoopla” is that people were all ready to defend their positions against an attack that wan’t even there. If these Christian teachers and pundits were really seeking truth with the honesty and humility prescribed by Christ’s example then they would have been quite content to let the video sit in quiet obscurity until the book was released and they had a firm stance to agree or disagree with.
Sorry, Ryan, not buying that at all. Bell took a strong stand, expressed his opinion in the form of questions in his clip, and neither he nor anyone else should be surprised by the reaction. Not that I endorse all the reactions (especially the “heretic” stuff). But to accuse me of dishonesty because I see his clip as more statements than open-ended questions is an unfounded accusation. Good thing I’m thick-skinned.
Emily, thanks for the review of Bell Wins, er, I mean, Love Wins. I’m a brazenly-late-adopter, so I’ll no doubt read this book once I finally finish The Shack.
In my arrogant opinion, at the end of the day a little two word question still lurks in the shadows, stalking all of us – ‘so what?’ If Rob’s wrong, am I redoubling my efforts to spread Christ to the nations, or maybe just be a better neighbor? Or if Rob’s right, am I now eating my weight in bacon whilst reading Chelsea Handler books? For a woman or man of faith, ‘meaning’ is just a smidgen away from ‘ethic’, or ‘this means something that affects the way I live.’ Something tells me that no matter how many times this book wins, Rob would be ultimately chagrined if at the end of it folks only said ‘oh, I just read Bell for fun.’
I must confess that it strikes me sad that I’ve not read any ‘antibells’ who at the end of their conclusions and/or condemnations have said ‘but God I wish Rob were right.’ Much is gleaned from what we say, but like always, just as much from what we don’t say.
John B.
The “so what” question goes both ways, though doesn’t it? I mean, when Jerry Falwell said a hurricane happened because New Orleans allowed a gay pride parade, did anyone who is now defending Bell say “so what?” No, they (rightly) publicly called Falwell out.
Also, if “so what” is a great response, then why aren’t those who are pro-Bell now shrugging off the “heretic” accusations being levied toward Bell? By my unofficial count of blog posts, there have been a lot more people complaining about those who oppose Bell than those complaining about Bell.
Your last sentence sounds judgmental, by the way. the fact that many of us who are concerned about people ignoring the reality of hell have not said either way about whether we wish Bell were right is not an invitation for you to guess what’s in our heart. I also have not said anything positive about my wife in this thread, but anyone would be out of line if they thought that meant I don’t love her. Judge me by what I have said, not by what I have not said.
Sorry John, but you will not hear any of Bell’s critics wish that he were right. To do so would obfuscate God’s justice. We are still sinners and should not conform God’s Word and the work of Christ to our finite understanding, but to honestly seek him first despite our questions.
In Revelation 10 John is given a scroll to eat that’s both sweet to the taste, yet bitter in the stomach. To provide only the sweet to the world, or only clinging to the sweet in our obedience to Scripture is only a half truth. We should be wary of half-truths, because it allows corruption.
As a pastor, Rob Bell has authority and will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1). This, more than anything else, is the answer to your ‘so what’ question.
If you’re interested in hearing another pastors take along very similar lines to that of Bells, check out the episode of This American Life titled “Heretics.”
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/304/heretics/
A fascinating listen.
With similar resistance from the church body.
James, I stand by what I wrote.
I’ve no reason to doubt you love your wife.
Have a good weekend.
Matthew, I’m a critic of Bell; however, there have been moments when I wish he were right. This ‘negative capability’ is, I guess, a glaring example that I’m still a sinner.
I just want to point out that Larry S has been posting as he reads through this book, one chapter at a time. Great stuff. Makes good, well-thought-out points.
http://www.larryshallenberger.com/2011/03/15/love-wins-preface-and-chapter-one/
Larry posted that above.
Oops. Sorry. Well, I’m adding my endorsement, for what that’s worth. Because what I am seeing so far in all the stuff I have read is that those who were already on board with Bell have been very likely to endorse the book, and those who were already anti-Bell have been quick to slam it. Larry’s simply walking through it, with a balanced look at everything. It’s been very helpful.
I have been reading through “Love Wins” and just finished Larry’s blog on it (so far) and I agree that his critism seems to come from a very fair and open-minded analysis of what he has read versus his own knowledge of Scripture. In my opionion, his response to the book so far should be the standard for how we discuss such important theological questions.
Let me preface this with saying that I have no intention of ever reading Love Wins, or, likely, anything Rob Bell writes or has written. Not because I think he has nothing of value to say, but just because I’m pretty selective about who and what I spend my time reading, especially if I’m not sure I’m going to like it.
That being said, I still feel like I have something to say about his opinions expressed, especially after reading so much of what others have said and seeing him interviewed.
Bell, and others like him, operate from a frame of reference in which their discomfort over the doctrine of an eternal hell takes precedence over the authority of Scripture. Given that discomfort, they then seek to justify their stance against an eternal hell by obscuring passages in Scripture which teach that doctrine.
Whatever. He’s not saying anything George MacDonald, Madeleine L’Engle, and Origen haven’t already, and his little book will fade into obscurity (I hope), outweighed by the overwhelming number of orthodox voices on the other side.
I do think he should have been more careful about drawing the line so clearly on this issue. I think it’s saying something that he’s taken such a stance against eternal hell, and that, in the end, will cost him; not just in terms of being ostracized by people uncomfortable with his stance, but also in terms of his accountability before God as a teacher with authority. It’s one thing to hold a view personally; it’s another to take a public stance on an issue and call out the other (historically orthodox) side as being wrong.
Sorry for not replying sooner, and it may not even be relevant any more. When I differentiated C.S. Lewis from seminary trained theologians I didn’t mean it as a diss. I read The Great Divorce about once a year, and it has been an invaluable tool in my college ministry. Here’s what I meant. Cool as The Great Divorce may be, it is not an expansive text on the Biblical doctrine of Heaven and Hell. More to the point, I don’t think Lewis ever intended it to be.
Sure, books like The Great Divorce, and Pilgrim’s Progress have a devotional coloring to them. But to try and group them with Calvin’s Institutes or Augustine’s City of God does all the authors a serious dis-service. They’re not comparable or analogous in any way they’re just different. It doesn’t mean they’re less valuable.
@Nathan Bubna….I would challenge you to think of theologians the same way you think of doctors, and auto mechanics. In order to be trusted with the subject of our physical bodies, or the engineering of our cars, we should be critical of certification and credentials. As far as C.S Lewis is concerned, he’s like a great Podiatrist, and I respect him as such….I wouldn’t want him operating on my heart though. He doesn’t have a lesser value….just a different expertise.
I haven’t read the book so I will hold any comments. I will comment on the string of replies I just read. For those on us on the sidelines [trying to figure this complex stuff out or just waiting to read the book]; this discussion is absolutely refreshing. To hear people disagree passionately about something without resorting to damning or calling someone an idiot.
I don’t know if ANY of the questions I began with have been answered [again I still need to read the book and maybe a counterpoint book], but what all of you have provided is a potential framework that allows me to be cognizant of various ways of looking at the material presented.
Kudos to all of you. Perhaps all of you should take over the airways and show the alleged experts how positive, courteous disagreement can be discussed.