Southwood Presbyterian Church

Love Wins, NOT a winner

Monday, May 23, 2011

by Will Spink, Director of Shepherding

You can find Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, everywhere from the cover of Time magazine to the top of bestseller lists. You won’t be able to find it being sold in Southwood’s Guest Center or being taught in our Sunday Seminars this fall. What? Who would write a critique of a book called Love Wins? Well, in this case, me! Surely the next thing I’ll do is complain about apple pie and ice cream, right? I assure you there’s no chance of that anytime soon!

Brief Summary of Love Wins
Before I offer that critique, let me first offer a brief overview of some key assertions Bell makes in his book and then suggest some very positive points to it. This will certainly not cover all he says but will help explain up front why the book has been such a lightning rod for praise and critique.

Bell is writing about issues of eternity – “heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived”(subtitle) – so it’s no surprise that the issues he addresses matter to people. Love Wins has been widely criticized (the best review I have read and to which I am indebted is by Kevin DeYoung at thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung) for espousing universalism (all people are saved), post-mortem second chances at salvation, and the denial of a literal, traditionally understood hell. Though Bell might not claim all these labels himself, the book clearly deserves them. He asserts that God’s love is so great that it will eventually win over every human heart; thus, no one will suffer the pangs of hell forever, and eventually all will live in fellowship with this loving God. Bell depicts hell, rather than as an eternal place of punishment, as a present and future (but not eternal) reality we choose to live in when we reject God’s love. 
Lest someone think along the way that I am making a bigger deal out of these issues than I should, let me be clear that I am not giving them more importance than Bell himself does. He draws a line in the sand on these topics when he calls traditional stories of Jesus and Christianity “misguided” and “toxic” (viii) and implicitly labels the impact of these traditional stories on our world “tragic” (7). 

Some Real Positives
Bell, as he often does, brings a fresh perspective on many things, which I really appreciate in an author. This is not in itself a bad thing and can push readers to consider beliefs carefully. He makes me think! In addition, Bell references a lot of Scripture, so that he’s not claiming to be a self-validating authority for his positions. He is not long-winded or repetitive, he correctly identifies God as “love,” and he evidences an exemplary heart for the marginalized and downtrodden. This concern for social justice and the harm our sin causes to the “least of these” is a commendable emphasis that is sometimes glossed over. His chapter on heaven (“Here Is the New There”) is excellent and corrects many commonly held misconceptions about what those in fellowship with their Creator will be doing forever. Finally, most of what he writes sounds very “Christian,” lots of words and phrases that churchgoers will find familiar and perhaps even reassuring.

Some Grave Concerns
This fact, however, is actually disconcerting since falsehood that sounds like truth can be both deceptive and devastating … and I believe the overall tenor of this book is exactly that: false and potentially devastating. Overall conclusions like universal salvation and Bell’s view on hell are certainly worrisome. His universalism, for example, causes him to equate completely the communion believers in Christ experience in the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) with the communion of all people in their common humanity, since Jesus mysteriously indwells the entire world (157). But it’s the casualties along the way to these conclusions, the issues that underlie and support these conclusions – that are more grievous and more devastating in my mind. I will only address three, but they are weighty: the use of the Bible, the nature of God, and the nature of sin.

The Use of the Bible
As I noted earlier, Bell cites a lot of Scripture passages. I will not pretend to explain Bell’s entire hermeneutic, his strategy for interpreting and understanding the Bible, but a couple comments are in order before I look at some specific examples. Much of contemporary literary theory emphasizes the death of the author and the life of the text in the hands of the reader. What this means is that the author’s intended communication is secondary (or even unimportant) compared to the meaning one finds when approaching the text as a reader, or especially as a community of readers in a particular cultural setting. I certainly don’t believe Bell treats the Bible entirely that way, but he heads in that direction. He certainly highlights community, especially recommending communities that encourage debate and questions rather than those that squelch them. He even concludes that the very “discussion” of truth and error “itself is divine” (ix). I certainly don’t mind discussion – in fact, I love a lively debate – but we must always have those with our hearts clearly submitted to the authority of God’s written Word. Bell is right that a sense of wonder and mystery at the person of Christ and the working of the gospel are absolutely appropriate. I hope that when I assert something firmly from Scripture it never communicates I have fully comprehended God or understood everything about how He works. But where God speaks clearly, there is no problem with saying, “Period. End of discussion.” Whatever issues contribute to Bell’s approach to the Bible, in this book it is on occasion solid and reliable but in several instances careless, at best.

First, the covenantal context of the prophets is often overlooked. Almost all of the Old Testament prophets address the covenant people of Israel and call them back to faithfulness to the God of the covenant. Thus, promises of restoration to these people are hardly blanket guarantees of restoration to all people on the day of the Lord. Bell acknowledges this reality and gives the example of Egypt from Isaiah 19 to eliminate this concern (88). That hardly suffices; God’s bringing Gentiles into his covenant does not imply universal salvation or restoration. Even his promises of restoration to his covenant people are replete with appeals to personal repentance and embrace of the God of the covenant. It is quite clear throughout the prophets that an individual member (or even generation) of God’s covenant people who continually rejects the God of that covenant should expect judgment, not presume upon God’s love or participation in God’s restoration.

Second, Bell’s application of this same principle to the city of Sodom completely misses the context of both Old and New Testament passages. In Ezekiel 16, the prophet references Sodom (among others) as an example of a wicked city whose wickedness Jerusalem herself has surpassed. In Matthew 11 (Bell cites Matthew 10), Jesus warns the city of Capernaum that “it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” Bell takes these two instances as evidence that even the most wicked, condemned people actually have hope. The message in each passage is actually a warning of judgment (which Bell seems to ignore), not a guarantee of hope (even though restoration is also promised in Ezekiel 16). One would be hard-pressed to find the promise of salvation for the residents of Sodom destroyed in Genesis 19 in either of these passages.

Third, Bell (like Origen centuries ago) puts too much stock for universalism in Pauline references to “universal” uniting or reconciling in Christ (Ephesians 1, Philippians 2, Colossians 1). Without going too far into the range of meaning of the Greek word for “all,” one can still note that a simple assumption that these passages imply every individual person who has ever lived is unwarranted. In both Colossians and Ephesians, Paul clarifies that he is referring to things on heaven and on earth. In other words, the scope of the reconciliation is huge (Jesus comes to make blessings flow “far as the curse is found,” in all of creation, including human hearts); however, his point is not to apply it to every individual. In Philippians 2, one day every knee will bow to Jesus, but this does not imply every person living in fellowship with God forever. In fact, some of those knees bowing will be in heaven, some on earth, and some “under the earth.” The demons remind us that knowledge of God’s identity doesn’t guarantee saving relationship.

Fourth, the use of I Corinthians 10 in the chapter “There Are Rocks Everywhere” takes it well beyond its intended message. Bell recounts the Exodus 17 account of the Israelites drinking from a rock and Paul’s explanation that “that rock was Christ.” He then writes, “Paul’s interpretation that Christ was present in the Exodus raises the question: Where else has Christ been present? When else? With who else? How else? Paul finds Jesus there, in that rock, because Paul finds Jesus everywhere” (144). This is simply untrue and misleading, and it ignores the context of Exodus 17, the sacramental context of I Corinthians 10, and the warnings to God’s people in both passages.

Fifth, the lack of context leads to faulty conclusions in regards to John 14:6, where Jesus identifies himself as “the way, the truth, and the life.” Bell admittedly swings the door to Jesus as the “way” wide open, “creating all sorts of possibilities” for how he could be the way, possibilities that include people finding Jesus as the way to God without knowing it and people experiencing Jesus as the way to God as the “very life source of the universe” (155-56). Bell seems happy to omit the consistent references in John 14 to faith or belief in Jesus as the way one knows Him and the Father. This, of course, is consistent with the message of the gospel of John, that the hope of the gospel comes through faith, through believing in Jesus as the way to the Father (John 3:16, 3:36, 20:31). John 3:36 even contrasts those who believe in the Son and have eternal life with those who reject Him and face God’s wrath.   

Finally, Bell bases his most problematic chapter, “Does God Get What God Wants?”, around an overly simplistic reading of I Timothy 2:4. I’ll deal with the larger issue below under the nature of God, but here I’ll say that the way Bell takes this passage (a simple “God wants everybody saved”) does not deal with the complex nature of God’s will and thus threatens to fly in the face of other similar passages where God “wills” something to happen that clearly does not always happen. These examples would include our avoiding sexual immorality (I Thessalonians 4:3), our giving thanks in all circumstances (I Thessalonians 5:18), and putting to silence the ignorance of foolish people by our doing good (I Peter 2:15).

I give these examples simply to say that one should be careful when following Bell’s “exegesis” of a biblical passage. Reading this book with a good study Bible or set of commentaries would help, too, and would probably help one to see some holes or inconsistencies fairly quickly.

The Nature of God
Bell doesn’t claim to be presenting a systematic theology on the nature of God in this book, but he addresses several issues that make clear comments on his picture of God. Bell asserts that since God is love (I agree this far!), He requires no payment for our sins but loves us anyway and always. Bell repeatedly emphasizes this unconditional, unilateral love of God but rarely mentions anything about God’s holiness, purity, and power.

In fact, when Bell does address the issue of God’s power in the chapter “Does God Get What God Wants?”, he asks the seemingly rhetorical question from I Timothy 2:4, “Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants?” (98). He even goes so far as to suggest that God not getting what God wants (the salvation of all) would be for God to “fail” (98). What he argues in the rest of the chapter, though, reveals that this question is not at all rhetorical. He says that when it comes to humanity, God “has to play by the same rules we do” (103) because love demands he give us freedom. At one point Bell so tames his characterization of God that Bell is more confident we get what we want than that God gets what God wants. After all, he argues, isn’t that what love would desire?

As a son and a father, I have to say that’s a disturbing picture of God as our father – that the most loving thing He can do is give us whatever we want! Since when is the definition of loving to give to someone whatever he wants? Shouldn’t parents – especially omniscient, omnipotent, perfect ones – occasionally give their children – especially stubborn, selfish, sinful ones – what they most need rather than whatever they want?

Even more shocking to me are the reasons given for understanding God this way. They are not primarily biblical – although occasionally Scripture passages are quoted – but rather psychological. Apparently, God must operate this way because we want him to be like this. The traditional Christian view of God is one Bell characterizes as “loving one moment, vicious the next. Kind and compassionate, only to become cruel and relentless in the blink of an eye” (174). This God is “simply devastating, psychologically crushing” (174), “terrifying, traumatizing, and unbearable” (175). We shouldn’t believe God is like this, he says, because it “isn’t a very good story” (110). Now God is certainly beyond our full comprehension, but I have always believed in a God who was both loving and holy at the same time, not one or the other depending on his mood in the moment. And I’ll admit this is overwhelming to wrap my mind around at times, but it causes me to bow in humility and awe, not crumble under a crushing, unbearable weight. I find it quite a good story in that it produces both hope and trust, neither despair at his holiness apart from love nor lack of confidence in his love without power to act – and for extra credit, seems to me the story God tells of Himself.

The way Bell deals with the will of God (as referenced above) is symptomatic of this way of determining God’s character. Many Christians have talked about God having two “wills” evident biblically, a will of command and a will of decree (or something similar to these categories). Without going into detail and regardless of what one thinks of that, there are options other than Bell’s simplistic assumption. There are passages (some mentioned above) that would clearly push one to consider this issue and other passages like Romans 9:22 that are not only germane to the discussion but also raise pretty strong doubts about some of Bell’s assertions for what he – on his own, apparently – determines would bring God glory.

Addendum (5/2/11): I was in the middle of this section of this review when the tornadoes that hit Northern Alabama left me without power for the past four days. I spent yesterday afternoon dragging shingles and lumber across the yards they had been blown through and helping people piece together what was left of homes and possessions. I must say that I find Bell’s characterization of God even less appealing in the midst of this devastation. I need (and biblically I find) a God who is both loving and holy, both good and great. Psalm 62:11-12 reads, “Once God has spoken, twice have I heard this: that power belongs to God, and that to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love.” I must tell you in the midst of the storms and as I see my own heart, I don’t want a god who gives me whatever I want but can’t control the winds that blow around and within me or account for the results of them. I don’t want to judge Bell’s personal view of God, as he may hold a very robust view of God’s holiness, love, and sovereignty. The person characterized in this book, however, is not just a slightly different version of the same God; he is a decidedly different deity from the God of the Bible. For more on the hope and confidence that can come from the God of the Bible, who is both good and great, listen to my senior pastor’s sermon on Psalm 107:23-32 from yesterday (May 1), entitled “Where Was God Last Wednesday?” at www.southwood.org/audio.

The Nature of Sin
Bell certainly believes in sin, and as I noted earlier, the way he firmly addresses issues of social injustice as examples of our sin is very commendable. The problem is that whenever Bell speaks of sin, sin is injustice we commit against each other. This is not wrong, just incomplete. There is no sense of our sinfulness or sinful actions as odious or offensive to the holiness and purity of God. And while we certainly do harm and offend each other when we sin, the holiness of God is such that we can say to God with David (who had even had a man killed), “Against you (God), you only, have I sinned” (Psalm 51:4). Our sin is at its core rebellion against the King.

I have earnestly sought to find this notion in Love Wins and cannot. In fact, I find evidence to the contrary instead. Bell describes hell many times, and it is always something we create rather than a punishment God justly gives to sinners. Hell is “our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story” (170) or a “big, wide, terrible evil that comes from the secrets hidden deep within our hearts” (93). We experience hell individually and communally, now just as we do “later” (79).

Time and again Bell reiterates that we don’t owe God anything for our sins. God is the one who rescues us, not the one from whom we are rescued (182). Jesus, he says, frees us from a violent, demanding God who creates fear in us “because his kind of love simply does away with fear” (184). This is so close to true and yet so far away! How does Jesus give us this freedom from the wrath of God? By taking God’s wrath for us on the cross, by becoming a curse for us … not just because his love simply makes us unafraid. It does that by paying our great debt on the cross and making us children of our Heavenly Father who are free and unafraid in his arms.

This is not only true when Jesus comes to deal with our sins against God; it’s the story of the whole Old Testament, too. Because God is love, he desires to dwell with his people, actually to live in fellowship with those he created in his image. Yet Adam’s sin quickly made that a problem because a holy God could not live among a sinful people. As soon as his holy presence “moves in” to the tabernacle (Exodus 40), the sacrificial system is set up to deal with Israel’s sin and impurity so that God can dwell in their midst (see all of Leviticus). God continues to pursue that kind of fellowship with his people through the time of the temple and the prophets, all the way to the point of sending his Son as the fulfillment of the promises and the ultimate sacrifice that would enable sinful people to live with a holy God forever. From the beginning of the Bible’s story, God’s abounding love and compassion does not simply overlook sin but rather deals with it so that he can dwell with his people. That’s love that wins … and remains holy. 

Pastoral Note
I don’t recommend you read the book since there is a wealth of solid literature out there to feed your soul. But if you do wrestle with some of these issues (you’re not alone) and want to read the book, I would encourage you not to stop there but to read other views and seek counsel from God’s Word and others who study it. What’s the danger I’m sensing? Other than simply debating theological nuances, why do I get so worked up about this? Remember first that Bell and I agree on the serious nature of these issues. I’m not making something up that he thinks is inconsequential.

Pastorally, I’m concerned that this book (among other things) threatens the urgency of repentance, the joy we have in our redemption from our sins, and the size of the cross in our minds and hearts. As my senior pastor often reminds me, God’s grace to us in Jesus is not amazing until our sin is amazing first. Shrinking our sin and its ramifications simultaneously shrinks the work of Christ on the cross. Anything that threatens to shrink the size of the cross, the magnitude of Jesus’s finished work there, is dangerous to our souls and to the gospel hope we offer the world. I’m also zealous to protect the pure joy and astonishment of believers redeemed by the grace of God to them in Jesus Christ. If we don’t desperately need Jesus to save us, we won’t rejoice and thank Him as we should, and our lives will not reflect the transformation God’s grace ought to produce.