My (Very Short and Utterly Objective) Review of Love Wins, by Rob Bell
--Karl Barth "The Proclamation of God's Free Grace," in God Here and Now (Routledge Classics, 2003), p. 42
Being late as I am to most parties, I just recently came around to reading Rob Bell's now infamous release, Love Wins. I should somewhat ruefully admit by "read" I mean "listen to," as I couldnt quite bring myself to delay other reading just for its sake. (Bell is the narrator of his own book, for those interested in an audio version, and I can say he gives a slick and emotive reading.) By now Im sure the many not following John Piper's eminently Christian gesture of rejecting a book not yet released (through a flawlessly logical dismissal contained somehow within the 140 character limit of twitter, no less) have either read the book for themselves, or heard rumors of Bell's "Christian universalism" (that is, for those who don't know, the idea that Christ saves everyone). To my mind the label fits. But Bell is more than the label. This is a heartfelt plea to those who have been hurt by Christianity or disgusted by a two-faced God who is kind one minute and gleefully casting others who didn't pray quite right into an eternal lake He decided to fill with fire the next. Rob Bell is quite rightly bemused and saddened at those who peddle a Dr. Evil-esque God, one who conjures all sorts of ludicrously exorbitant tortures for his victims ala sharks with (fricken) laser beams on their (fricken) heads. After all, Bell is certainly right when he notes many of the images that are often invoked by the mere mention of Hell sound more of Dante than they do of Paul.
On a charitable reading, the book is thus a proclamation of the gospel of the hope of Christ, seen through the question: will Hell ultimately be empty? Bell's answer is, of course, that God desires all to be saved and so ultimately gets what he wants. So yes, eventually even those in hell will be softened, and turn to God. Those wanting to question Bell's orthodoxy should be given at least a moments pause to note that Bell's position is very similar (at least superficially) to the Eastern Orthodox who believe that in Christ's death and descent into Hell, thereby by being resurrected and ascending to heaven Hade's chains were broken (usually based on a reading of Ephesians 4:7-10, which is a quote of Ps. 68:18) In many (largely implicit) ways, Bell seems indebted to this Orthodox tradition.
Yet, this is where the similarity ends. Rob Bell embodies both many of the best and many of the worst qualities of a Christian author. He is interesting, often generous, a good story teller. Unfortunately even those many who might be sympathetic with Bell and his claims, may want to distance themselves from this, their most recent defense as it embodies an almost complete lack of coherent argument. As a matter of temporal coincidence, last year I read another vaguely similar book by the leading Russian Orthodox theologian, Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev, entitled Christ the Conqueror of Hell, which is a lengthy overview of the history of the concept in Eastern Orthodox theology. I say vaguely similar because Archbishop Alfeyev is a scholar of the first rate, and it is unfair that I should compare Bell to him. Nonetheless given the hoopla that surrounded Bell's book, I am sorry to say it was a rumble generated more from his celebrity than from his argumentation. Neither heat nor light, merely sound. And not even a voice in the wilderness.
Without getting too much into details, Bell's work, while not without merit, is mostly a confused morass of hasty generalization hiding behind an army of conscripted Bible texts strain and crack under the tortion of making Bell's point. Bell reads his Bible like I'm sure many stare at Magic Eye pictures: if you relax your eyes and tilt your head just so, the difficult melange of many colors and images disappear, and a nice, clean picture emerges. In the same way Bell has stared long enough and hard enough that many of the details have quite conveniently melted away and find no voice here. His word studies are lengthy examples of how not to do them. His personal stories are touching but often appear to carry the weight of the argument, rather than the text. At some points Bell reads images like Hell and sees them as just a mixture of metaphors that describe real experiences and consequences of rejecting God (mostly in this present life). But at other times as it suits him, Bell is hyper-literal. Gehenna, since it refers to a literal place outside of Jerusalem, couldn't possibly have a metaphorical or spiritual significance, argues Bell. At another point Bell argues that since "aeon" can simply mean "age" Hell is not "eternal," merely a "period of time." Yet he no where deals with the very real problem (putting aside for a moment that the actual word used is aeonion, which is not quite the same) that if this is true, why should we understand "eternal life," as forever? Bell pictures heaven and hell side by side, with people eventually repenting and coming into heaven. One wonders though, with Bell's reasoning, if people cant wander the other way.
At other times Bell's work is fractured from underneath by a certain tension. He wants to present what he is doing as new enough so those recently burned by Christianity can accept it, but ancient enough that it appears orthodox. And certainly there are good arguments out there, Alfeyev's book is proof that there is a strong stream of tradition. Unfortunately very little of it shows up in Bell's book. Nor does he cite more recent offerings like von Balthasar or Barth. He fires off a list of a few names like Origen (not the best example) and Gregory of Nyssa (better). But then fails to give a single argument of theirs. Its like Bell is dodgeball team captain and he's simply yelling "my team!" as fast as he can as he points to a few figures. At other times he represents those who disagree with his view as confused simpletons who actually don't know what they are saying (in the audio book version he gets pretty sarcastic sounding as he goes). He gives, for example, a catalogue of sixteen passages where Jesus lists different ideas on what it takes to please God (and these without context, in the audio book version Bell literally becomes breathless at the pace he lists them). When Bell adds another five requirements from Paul (again without context, or attempt at synthesis) the impression he gives is that the Bible itself is a somewhat eclectic, incoherent mess. So too is it implied that the more traditional view of Hell is just one (mistaken) view of many, not to be taken seriously. In the end Bell appeals to the fact that the story he tells "is a better story," than the classic one. Which to many may be true. But why everyone should be beholden to Bell's final word on what makes a good story is itself unclear. If what Bell means is that his story is tailor made for many contemporary sensibilities, sure. It just seems to me that the fire and brimstone bit played to packed houses in the Middle Ages. And Dante didn't get famous for writing a poem just about purgatory.
Bell's lack of engagement with anything but fleeting caricatures is disheartening. At one point even the sympathetic will cringe as Bell, apparently unable to pick his battles, cites a passage in Hebrews by the sly: "the woman who wrote Hebrews notes..." Even if you are open to the idea (that has zero evidence, however tantalizing it might be) that Priscilla or Aquila wrote Hebrews (first proposed, I believe, by von Harnack) you have to admit that by referencing it like that its hard not to get the impression that nice guy Rob Bell is at this point just giving the middle finger to the establishment. And even if you are a Christian universalist you will have to admit Bell's stubborn refusal to deal with actual issues in favor of the opposition is like the kid who takes his ball and just goes home to play by his rules. At one point he even asserts (without arguing) that Hell is absurd because judgment gives God no glory. Or that there is only one way to read "God desires all men to be saved." I am sympathetic to the claims. Yet I can only feel sorry for Bell at that point, as Im sure Calvinists from here to Geneva lined up at his door to beat him to death with a copy of the Institutes. Of course, you could hardly blame them. They were predestined to do it.
I put the Karl Barth quote up at the top because I think it illustrates a good point. Often I think people were quick to criticize Bell not because they disagreed with this or that piece of exegesis, or because they felt the truth of the matter was different. It often felt like there was a certain anxiety that God's grace might indeed turn out to be too free. This, I think, is a silly fear. All Christians should be hopeful universalists even if they don't believe it. The vitriol Bell received was a testament to Barth's words. I for one certainly do not agree with Bell; and while there were enjoyable moments there were also frustratingly bad ones. I think we have to keep in mind Paul who wrote in Philippians 1:18: "But what does it matter? The important thing is that, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice, and continue to rejoice." If anyone has come to Christ because they felt liberated by Bell's presentation of the Gospel, I too rejoice. In their haste to cut Bell down I think many like Piper have forgotten that Bell was attempting (however poorly) to reach those who are hurting and needed to hear the real and genuine hope contained in the gospel message. Yet I grieve too, because to be frank Bell completely botched his opportunity. After all, the very same Paul quoted above again and again repeats the importance of doctrine, a point in general that Bell seems to shrug off. God works in mysterious ways, and I hope he works through Bell's book. And I hope he works in those genuinely hurt by the church to bring them back, to feel His love and hope. But I couldn't help but put Bell's book down (or, I guess, turn the audio off) and be left with the impression of a really nice guy who believed passionately in something, but who didn't quite get beyond wikipedia.
On a charitable reading, the book is thus a proclamation of the gospel of the hope of Christ, seen through the question: will Hell ultimately be empty? Bell's answer is, of course, that God desires all to be saved and so ultimately gets what he wants. So yes, eventually even those in hell will be softened, and turn to God. Those wanting to question Bell's orthodoxy should be given at least a moments pause to note that Bell's position is very similar (at least superficially) to the Eastern Orthodox who believe that in Christ's death and descent into Hell, thereby by being resurrected and ascending to heaven Hade's chains were broken (usually based on a reading of Ephesians 4:7-10, which is a quote of Ps. 68:18) In many (largely implicit) ways, Bell seems indebted to this Orthodox tradition.
Yet, this is where the similarity ends. Rob Bell embodies both many of the best and many of the worst qualities of a Christian author. He is interesting, often generous, a good story teller. Unfortunately even those many who might be sympathetic with Bell and his claims, may want to distance themselves from this, their most recent defense as it embodies an almost complete lack of coherent argument. As a matter of temporal coincidence, last year I read another vaguely similar book by the leading Russian Orthodox theologian, Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev, entitled Christ the Conqueror of Hell, which is a lengthy overview of the history of the concept in Eastern Orthodox theology. I say vaguely similar because Archbishop Alfeyev is a scholar of the first rate, and it is unfair that I should compare Bell to him. Nonetheless given the hoopla that surrounded Bell's book, I am sorry to say it was a rumble generated more from his celebrity than from his argumentation. Neither heat nor light, merely sound. And not even a voice in the wilderness.
Without getting too much into details, Bell's work, while not without merit, is mostly a confused morass of hasty generalization hiding behind an army of conscripted Bible texts strain and crack under the tortion of making Bell's point. Bell reads his Bible like I'm sure many stare at Magic Eye pictures: if you relax your eyes and tilt your head just so, the difficult melange of many colors and images disappear, and a nice, clean picture emerges. In the same way Bell has stared long enough and hard enough that many of the details have quite conveniently melted away and find no voice here. His word studies are lengthy examples of how not to do them. His personal stories are touching but often appear to carry the weight of the argument, rather than the text. At some points Bell reads images like Hell and sees them as just a mixture of metaphors that describe real experiences and consequences of rejecting God (mostly in this present life). But at other times as it suits him, Bell is hyper-literal. Gehenna, since it refers to a literal place outside of Jerusalem, couldn't possibly have a metaphorical or spiritual significance, argues Bell. At another point Bell argues that since "aeon" can simply mean "age" Hell is not "eternal," merely a "period of time." Yet he no where deals with the very real problem (putting aside for a moment that the actual word used is aeonion, which is not quite the same) that if this is true, why should we understand "eternal life," as forever? Bell pictures heaven and hell side by side, with people eventually repenting and coming into heaven. One wonders though, with Bell's reasoning, if people cant wander the other way.
At other times Bell's work is fractured from underneath by a certain tension. He wants to present what he is doing as new enough so those recently burned by Christianity can accept it, but ancient enough that it appears orthodox. And certainly there are good arguments out there, Alfeyev's book is proof that there is a strong stream of tradition. Unfortunately very little of it shows up in Bell's book. Nor does he cite more recent offerings like von Balthasar or Barth. He fires off a list of a few names like Origen (not the best example) and Gregory of Nyssa (better). But then fails to give a single argument of theirs. Its like Bell is dodgeball team captain and he's simply yelling "my team!" as fast as he can as he points to a few figures. At other times he represents those who disagree with his view as confused simpletons who actually don't know what they are saying (in the audio book version he gets pretty sarcastic sounding as he goes). He gives, for example, a catalogue of sixteen passages where Jesus lists different ideas on what it takes to please God (and these without context, in the audio book version Bell literally becomes breathless at the pace he lists them). When Bell adds another five requirements from Paul (again without context, or attempt at synthesis) the impression he gives is that the Bible itself is a somewhat eclectic, incoherent mess. So too is it implied that the more traditional view of Hell is just one (mistaken) view of many, not to be taken seriously. In the end Bell appeals to the fact that the story he tells "is a better story," than the classic one. Which to many may be true. But why everyone should be beholden to Bell's final word on what makes a good story is itself unclear. If what Bell means is that his story is tailor made for many contemporary sensibilities, sure. It just seems to me that the fire and brimstone bit played to packed houses in the Middle Ages. And Dante didn't get famous for writing a poem just about purgatory.
Bell's lack of engagement with anything but fleeting caricatures is disheartening. At one point even the sympathetic will cringe as Bell, apparently unable to pick his battles, cites a passage in Hebrews by the sly: "the woman who wrote Hebrews notes..." Even if you are open to the idea (that has zero evidence, however tantalizing it might be) that Priscilla or Aquila wrote Hebrews (first proposed, I believe, by von Harnack) you have to admit that by referencing it like that its hard not to get the impression that nice guy Rob Bell is at this point just giving the middle finger to the establishment. And even if you are a Christian universalist you will have to admit Bell's stubborn refusal to deal with actual issues in favor of the opposition is like the kid who takes his ball and just goes home to play by his rules. At one point he even asserts (without arguing) that Hell is absurd because judgment gives God no glory. Or that there is only one way to read "God desires all men to be saved." I am sympathetic to the claims. Yet I can only feel sorry for Bell at that point, as Im sure Calvinists from here to Geneva lined up at his door to beat him to death with a copy of the Institutes. Of course, you could hardly blame them. They were predestined to do it.
I put the Karl Barth quote up at the top because I think it illustrates a good point. Often I think people were quick to criticize Bell not because they disagreed with this or that piece of exegesis, or because they felt the truth of the matter was different. It often felt like there was a certain anxiety that God's grace might indeed turn out to be too free. This, I think, is a silly fear. All Christians should be hopeful universalists even if they don't believe it. The vitriol Bell received was a testament to Barth's words. I for one certainly do not agree with Bell; and while there were enjoyable moments there were also frustratingly bad ones. I think we have to keep in mind Paul who wrote in Philippians 1:18: "But what does it matter? The important thing is that, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice, and continue to rejoice." If anyone has come to Christ because they felt liberated by Bell's presentation of the Gospel, I too rejoice. In their haste to cut Bell down I think many like Piper have forgotten that Bell was attempting (however poorly) to reach those who are hurting and needed to hear the real and genuine hope contained in the gospel message. Yet I grieve too, because to be frank Bell completely botched his opportunity. After all, the very same Paul quoted above again and again repeats the importance of doctrine, a point in general that Bell seems to shrug off. God works in mysterious ways, and I hope he works through Bell's book. And I hope he works in those genuinely hurt by the church to bring them back, to feel His love and hope. But I couldn't help but put Bell's book down (or, I guess, turn the audio off) and be left with the impression of a really nice guy who believed passionately in something, but who didn't quite get beyond wikipedia.
Comments