Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
I wrote this long review of Love Wins then set the review aside for a weekend. When I came back, I realized I had basically written a giant diary entry. My history with Christianity is complicated, let's leave it at that and move on to the actual book.
Obviously, a lot of readers will have a hard time being objective about a book with a subtitle like A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, so I'm not going to pretend that I'm the best person to look toward for an unbiased review. I share most of Bell's beliefs and a hearty handful of the four stars I gave it are due to the fact that I think Love Wins tries to answer important questions -- questions that are especially important for someone from an IFB background -- and I tend to agree with most of Bell's conclusions.
However, his conclusions are drawn somewhat haphazardly. It can be difficult to understand some of his reasoning and I think his arguments could be stronger.
In case you haven't seen this book in person,
random sentences
are broken
as if the book
were a poem.
And the poetic line breaks came off as gimmicky, honestly, especially when there's already a non-standard font and unusual paragraph justification in the mix.
But the title is A+ -- the "love wins" part, I mean -- so bonus points for that.
Obviously, a lot of readers will have a hard time being objective about a book with a subtitle like A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, so I'm not going to pretend that I'm the best person to look toward for an unbiased review. I share most of Bell's beliefs and a hearty handful of the four stars I gave it are due to the fact that I think Love Wins tries to answer important questions -- questions that are especially important for someone from an IFB background -- and I tend to agree with most of Bell's conclusions.
However, his conclusions are drawn somewhat haphazardly. It can be difficult to understand some of his reasoning and I think his arguments could be stronger.
In case you haven't seen this book in person,
random sentences
are broken
as if the book
were a poem.
And the poetic line breaks came off as gimmicky, honestly, especially when there's already a non-standard font and unusual paragraph justification in the mix.
But the title is A+ -- the "love wins" part, I mean -- so bonus points for that.
Great ideas, most of which I already agreed with! Many worthwhile phrases worth remembering. It's nice to have an ideology like this spreading tolerance so widely and challenging the oppressive Christianity so many of us witness every day.
His extremely conversational, almost blog-style writing really did bother me though after a while. It's very accessible and easy to read and understand, and is at times very compelling. Personally though I found this style to be irritating and lacking in writing ability. I would much rather have his ideas expressed in more sentences and less fragments.
His extremely conversational, almost blog-style writing really did bother me though after a while. It's very accessible and easy to read and understand, and is at times very compelling. Personally though I found this style to be irritating and lacking in writing ability. I would much rather have his ideas expressed in more sentences and less fragments.
Love Wins really resonated with me. Overall, it was a good read that challenged my views and stretched my thinking. Ultimately causing me to delve deeper into God's word. In a sense it liberated me from the constraints of my own ill-conceived views about God. I have for many years viewed God much like my earthly father: fear-monger, rule-maker, always careful not to incur his wrath. But, then Jesus comes along and my view of God changes everything. I have long held to the belief that Jesus has reconciled ALL things to God. Ultimately, as long as we place our trust in Christ... everything will be alright; complete with our imperfections and screw ups. My view of grace has become broader in scope. It's no longer bound by individual belief or doctrine, but is a free gift for the entire world. And, I do believe all people will have a chance to grab hold of that gift, now, and just maybe even after death.
Bell's retelling of the story of the Prodigal Son really hit home with me too. How often are we the older son, at home with the Father, but never really enjoying life? We think life is unfair, full of rules, strict doctrine, theology, legalism, and requiring strict obedience, but fail to really enjoy life and engage our Father.
In regards to theology, the chapter concerning hell really made me pause and think. Is hell a literal place that God simply throws people away to be burned and consumed by fire because they didn't accept Jesus in this life? Is God all loving, but then shows no love to those who never heard the Gospel and consigns them to eternal torment? Or, was hell simply a place called Gehenna where the city trash dump existed near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, where trash was thrown to the fire and the animals can be found gnashing at the teeth? Or, is hell what we make from rejecting the love of God, both in the life now and the life thereafter?
And what about salvation? Is salvation limited and confined to the natural world in which we live? Or, can salvation be received even after we die in the spiritual world? Bell presupposes that God may save people even after their earthly death. If you would have told me this two years ago I would have scoffed at the idea. But, the more I thought about it, why couldn't He? If God is totally sovereign, then why should He be confined and limited to saving people only in the natural world, and not in the spiritual world? Bell references the story of Abraham's bosom in Luke 16 as possible evidence that God can indeed save people in the afterlife. And, I believe this passage is key because it shows interaction between God and what is presumed to be hell or separation (great chasm). The fact that God can still interact with those in this "place" shows that God doesn't give up and is not absent in the afterlife no matter the destination.
Although I agreed with a majority of Bell's material, there were a few things I disagreed with. I disagreed that people will be able to be saved from hell and move on over into heaven after they die. This would imply that God wavers in His judgment. I believe once God pronounces His judgment, what is done is done. But, I do believe that people may still be saved after their death prior to judgment. Does this mean I believe in a sort of purgatory? Perhaps. I don't know. I believe there is a biblical case for it. This is something I'm still wrestling through. Gregory Boyd talks a lot about this from a Protestant perspective. I also disagree that hell is temporary, only a refining fire. Hell is permanent. It is literal and not figurative. But, what hell looks like we can only speculate.
I also disagreed with the minimal use of Scripture. Bell really needed to use more Scripture to back his claims. A lot of what he proposed was speculative, but certainly a possibility. I believe Bell would have built a stronger case would he have utilized more Scripture, along with the early church's views on these matters.
However, what I disagreed with the most was that Bell left almost all of the subject matter open-ended. I know this was intentional. But, I think he left more people scratching their heads. I hope he will someday write a follow-up book to answer these open-ended questions. For instance, I want to know more details about why he believes people will be saved after they die. I want to know more details about why he believes hell will be more of an imaginative reality rather than the traditional views held by most evangelicals.
All throughout the book I thought Rob Bell gives compelling alternative views to heaven, hell, and eternal salvation from a biblical perspective. Even though I might not have agreed with everything, it most certainly has made me rethink my own position on these issues. I didn't see any glaring red flags or heresy from my own observation. I hope those who ranted and raved against him will relax a bit in the spirit of Christ and unity. Bell simply provides another view complete with Scripture and hermeneutical research to solidify his thoughts. And, many of his arguments are not new, but simply resurrected from the past. Do we default to centuries old traditions/interpretations on these matters and dismiss all other views? Or, do we open ourselves to probing deeper into these issues, engaging in dialog, and possibly begin to understand them from a much different perspective?
If anything, Rob Bell has taught me two things: that it's okay to question fundamental issues and love indeed wins.
Bell's retelling of the story of the Prodigal Son really hit home with me too. How often are we the older son, at home with the Father, but never really enjoying life? We think life is unfair, full of rules, strict doctrine, theology, legalism, and requiring strict obedience, but fail to really enjoy life and engage our Father.
In regards to theology, the chapter concerning hell really made me pause and think. Is hell a literal place that God simply throws people away to be burned and consumed by fire because they didn't accept Jesus in this life? Is God all loving, but then shows no love to those who never heard the Gospel and consigns them to eternal torment? Or, was hell simply a place called Gehenna where the city trash dump existed near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, where trash was thrown to the fire and the animals can be found gnashing at the teeth? Or, is hell what we make from rejecting the love of God, both in the life now and the life thereafter?
And what about salvation? Is salvation limited and confined to the natural world in which we live? Or, can salvation be received even after we die in the spiritual world? Bell presupposes that God may save people even after their earthly death. If you would have told me this two years ago I would have scoffed at the idea. But, the more I thought about it, why couldn't He? If God is totally sovereign, then why should He be confined and limited to saving people only in the natural world, and not in the spiritual world? Bell references the story of Abraham's bosom in Luke 16 as possible evidence that God can indeed save people in the afterlife. And, I believe this passage is key because it shows interaction between God and what is presumed to be hell or separation (great chasm). The fact that God can still interact with those in this "place" shows that God doesn't give up and is not absent in the afterlife no matter the destination.
Although I agreed with a majority of Bell's material, there were a few things I disagreed with. I disagreed that people will be able to be saved from hell and move on over into heaven after they die. This would imply that God wavers in His judgment. I believe once God pronounces His judgment, what is done is done. But, I do believe that people may still be saved after their death prior to judgment. Does this mean I believe in a sort of purgatory? Perhaps. I don't know. I believe there is a biblical case for it. This is something I'm still wrestling through. Gregory Boyd talks a lot about this from a Protestant perspective. I also disagree that hell is temporary, only a refining fire. Hell is permanent. It is literal and not figurative. But, what hell looks like we can only speculate.
I also disagreed with the minimal use of Scripture. Bell really needed to use more Scripture to back his claims. A lot of what he proposed was speculative, but certainly a possibility. I believe Bell would have built a stronger case would he have utilized more Scripture, along with the early church's views on these matters.
However, what I disagreed with the most was that Bell left almost all of the subject matter open-ended. I know this was intentional. But, I think he left more people scratching their heads. I hope he will someday write a follow-up book to answer these open-ended questions. For instance, I want to know more details about why he believes people will be saved after they die. I want to know more details about why he believes hell will be more of an imaginative reality rather than the traditional views held by most evangelicals.
All throughout the book I thought Rob Bell gives compelling alternative views to heaven, hell, and eternal salvation from a biblical perspective. Even though I might not have agreed with everything, it most certainly has made me rethink my own position on these issues. I didn't see any glaring red flags or heresy from my own observation. I hope those who ranted and raved against him will relax a bit in the spirit of Christ and unity. Bell simply provides another view complete with Scripture and hermeneutical research to solidify his thoughts. And, many of his arguments are not new, but simply resurrected from the past. Do we default to centuries old traditions/interpretations on these matters and dismiss all other views? Or, do we open ourselves to probing deeper into these issues, engaging in dialog, and possibly begin to understand them from a much different perspective?
If anything, Rob Bell has taught me two things: that it's okay to question fundamental issues and love indeed wins.
I know that all my "Relevant" Christian friends who hang on every word that Rob Bell utters are going to hate me when I say this, but I really don't like Rob Bell the auther.
Here's the thing that bugs the crap out of me - ROB BELLS IDEAS ARE NOT NEW! What he presents in this book is only the surface of what a very long and rich tradition of Christian mystics and theologians have been saying for over 2,000 years now. The idea of burning in hell is newer than the idea that "love wins".
And I do get it - Bell is hipe and edgy and he takes away a lot of the big vocabulary words that ancient writers use and presents this stuff in a way people who don't like books can begin to grasp. I think that's great. I just wish he would at least try to present the whole argument. This book could be a really great first chapter to a really great book about the epic question of heaven. Too bad it's not.
Bell is probably a great guy I have seen video presentations he has done (NOOMA and others) and I get it, he is a great conversation starter. I just don't think that works well in book form. Books should be the place where you take that glimps of an idea and devel in real deep to the heart of an argument. Books are suppose to allow an author room to fully explain their ideas. This is the second Bell book of his I have read and both have left me thinking he should be in the business of writing pamplets.
Here's the thing that bugs the crap out of me - ROB BELLS IDEAS ARE NOT NEW! What he presents in this book is only the surface of what a very long and rich tradition of Christian mystics and theologians have been saying for over 2,000 years now. The idea of burning in hell is newer than the idea that "love wins".
And I do get it - Bell is hipe and edgy and he takes away a lot of the big vocabulary words that ancient writers use and presents this stuff in a way people who don't like books can begin to grasp. I think that's great. I just wish he would at least try to present the whole argument. This book could be a really great first chapter to a really great book about the epic question of heaven. Too bad it's not.
Bell is probably a great guy I have seen video presentations he has done (NOOMA and others) and I get it, he is a great conversation starter. I just don't think that works well in book form. Books should be the place where you take that glimps of an idea and devel in real deep to the heart of an argument. Books are suppose to allow an author room to fully explain their ideas. This is the second Bell book of his I have read and both have left me thinking he should be in the business of writing pamplets.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
fast-paced
I enjoyed this read but can't imagine what it would be like to hear some of these ideas for the first time in such a quick and matter of fact way. I appreciate Bell's honesty and willingness to name the questions most of us have. I know this book is controversial but I didn't have issues with what he shares and actually agree with a lot of it. The chapter I struggled the most with was the one on Hell. He begins by pointing out that there are only a few passages about hell in scripture yet goes on to give a very detailed explanation of his view on what hell is.