An Amateur Critique of Love Wins

There has been a lot of talk the past couple months about a new book by Rob Bell called Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived (quite an undertaking for 200 pages). Bell is a well-known pastor from Michigan who has written a few other books and produced a video series called "Nooma" that many churches use for Sunday Schools or Bible studies. The reason that many Christians have been up in arms over Bell's new book is that some say it advocates universalism, which is the belief that, in the end, all people will be be saved and go to heaven. However, one problem is that many of those who have vehemently been criticizing the book have not actually read it, so I thought it would be a good idea to grab a copy and check it out. These are some of my thoughts on the book, though my treatment is by no means exhaustive. After all, it is after midnight right now, and I need by beauty sleep.

The concern that instigates the writing of Bell's book is a valid one, I think. Near the beginning of the book, he tells of an art show that his church hosted, and one exhibit includes a quote from Ghandi. During the show, someone attached a note to the exhibit that said, "Reality check: He's in hell." Bell comments, "Really? Gandhi's in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of the world know?" (1-2). The judgment demonstrated in this incident causes Bell to reexamine the doctrine of heaven and hell. As I understand it, Bell seems to propose that even after death, people will have continued opportunities to surrender to God's love, and that "God will ultimately restore everything and everybody" (107). However, in other places, Bell seems to contradict himself, and he uses enough enigmatic language in his book to make it difficult to pin down what he actually advocates. Nevertheless, there are several significant problems with his approach that deserve to be addressed.

Most importantly, I think, Bell tends to play a little fast and loose with Scripture throughout the book, either by taking verses out of context or by inserting concepts that don't seem to really be addressed by the passage. A few examples: In one section, he is writing about Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that were destroyed because of rampant sinfulness. Bell then references Matthew 10:15, where Jesus says that it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah at judgment than for cities that reject those Jesus sends out. Bell then writes, "More bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah? He tells highly committed, pious, religious people that it will be better for Sodom and Gomorrah than them on judgment day? There's still hope? And if there's still hope for Sodom and Gomorrah, what does that say about all of the other Sodoms and Gomorrahs?" (84-85). I think it is a bit of a jump, however, to say that Jesus' intent in his statement was to explain the eternal destinies of Sodom and Gomorrah. Bell may need to pay more attention to Jesus' use of hyperbole throughout the gospels.

There are other instances of similar problems. In one place, in trying to show that all people will accept God's love, Bell cites the common statement in Ezekiel: "The nations will know that I am the Lord" (99). He doesn't provide a specific verse reference for times that this phrase is used in the context of people accepting God's love, and he fails to mention that often, it is used in the context of judgment against wicked nations (e.g., 25:7, 11, 17). In another place, Bell discusses the parable of the prodigal son and goes into depth concerning the fate of the older brother in the story (Lk. 15). After retelling the story, Bell writes, "There is much for us here, about heaven, hell, and the news that is good" (170). At this point, I had to stop and ask, "What? Is the parable of these two brothers talking about heaven and hell? Is that the point of the story? Can we build a doctrine of the afterlife on this story?" It seems that Bell is inserting a topic into the story where it does not exist. These are just a few examples of how Bell uses Scripture in Love Wins, and some of his exegetical methods are questionable at best, I think.

In other places, Bell seems to ignore important passages that might contradict his position. In discussing how God is represented in Jesus' parables, he writes, "Is God like the characters in a story Jesus would tell, old ladies who keep searching for the lost coin until they find it, shepherds who don't rest until that one sheep is back in the fold, fathers who rush out to greet and embrace their returning son, or, in the end, will God give up?" (102). In the margin here, I wrote, "Or like the master of a wedding banquet who throws people outside?" Bell tends to focus on the images of God in which he welcomes all and searches for them, but then he ignores those images where God seems to draw a line in the sand, those images of judgment.

A little later, Bell writes, "Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, 'Sorry, too late'? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: 'Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late'" (108). At this, my mind goes to another parable Jesus tells in Matthew 25:1-13, where five foolish virgins show up late to a wedding banquet, so they bang on the door and beg the bridegroom to let them in, but he replies, "I tell you the truth, I don't know you."

Again, there are other examples in the book of times that Bell seems to ignore certain passages. The bulk of Revelation is pretty absent, and I don't remember seeing passages like 2 Thessalonians 8-9 ("[Jesus] will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power"). In short, Bell creates too sharp a contrast between God's love and his justice/judgment (for which he uses such words as "vicious" [174] or "cruel" [175]). To get to this point, he is forced to do some exegetical gymnastics.

I have heard a lot of people ask, "So is Rob Bell a universalist?" It's a little hard to say. Again, it can be difficult to track with what he is trying to communicate. In some places, it sounds like he might be, but in other places (especially his last chapter, as well as pgs. 154-155), he seems to deny universalism. So it might be a fruitless task to try to put Rob Bell in a doctrinal box, and we should probably just listen carefully to what he is actually saying.

So what should be the answer to the problem Bell is addressing? Because it truly is a problem. Writing a note at an art fair declaring the eternal punishment of Ghandi is certainly not the way Christ calls his church to act, and it is commendable for Rob Bell to bring such problems to our attention. But is the answer to this problem a reworking of the doctrine of heaven and hell? Or, should I response simply be to stop judging others? The greatest problem isn't our doctrine (though some people definitely have incorrect doctrines). The problem is our practice.

I like the way that Bill, a man in my church, has put it. He said that when people ask, "Will so-and-so be in heaven?", the best way to answer is to simply say, "Not without Jesus." Will Ghandi be in heaven? Not without Jesus. Will Mother Teresa be in heaven? Not without Jesus. Will Osama bin Laden be in heaven? Not without Jesus. Will I be in heaven? Not without Jesus. Our responsibility, then, is to constantly thank God for his amazing grace and to make sure as many people have the opportunity to know Jesus. We don't have to judge. I think Jesus is more than fit for that task.

This post is in no way an adequate treatment of Love Wins. I have not really talked about the really good points that Bell does make in the book, and there are still other problems in his arguments that should be addressed. But I only have so much time, and even less brainpower, so this will have to do it for me. Let me know what you think, especially if you've read the book. Also, you may want to check out Kevin DeYoung's review of Love Wins. It's pretty long, and I honestly haven't read it yet, but I've heard it's pretty good.