Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
I dread reviewing this book, luckily this review will probably only be read by like 3 people!
I'll start with chapter seven, where Bell discusses the parable of the Prodigal Son. I think this discussion points to the root of so much of the criticism of the book. The parable of the prodigal son is not about heaven and hell. It is simply the story of a son who takes his inheritance from his father, wastes it, returns to his father expecting nothing and being received with love. Seeing this, his older brother, who has always been faithful, refuses to join the party at the return of the younger son. Reflecting on this, Bell questions whether hell and heaven might not be the same place. After all, both sons are at the party. It is a matter of the two sons' attitudes.
I have had discussions with friends of mine who are conservative, Reformed (perhaps we could say fundamentalist) Christians. They have asked the same question. If you set yourself against God, hating God, wanting nothing to do with God, then hell is not "separation" from God but being in God's presence. So perhaps, we speculate, heaven and hell are the same place, being with God. Those who love God and thus desire this, it is heaven; those who hate God, it is hell.
More to the point of Bell's book, I think there is a difference in how Bell, and those like him, approach theology when compared to more traditional evangelical theologians. Traditionally when faced with an issue, such as hell, evangelicals would go to scripture, look up all the verses that talk about hell and use them to build their theology of hell. In this many theologians look at the Bible almost like a scientist looks at nature: as something filled with information to be picked up, pieced together and interpreted. Bell does not come at the Bible in this way, he looks at it as a big story (I believe his church's website talks a lot about "narrative theology"). So when Bell comes to an issue like hell, the answer comes not necessarily from all the Bible verses on hell, but from what the whole Bible tells us God is like. Thus, the parable of the prodigal son tells us a lot about what God is like, so it makes sense for Bell to include it.
So I think there is more going on in the clash between Bell and traditional Christians than simply the theology of hell. This is a symptom of a deeper root which is how to read the Bible and do theology in the first place.
Throughout the book, Bell is more interested in raising questions then in giving solid answers. Again, the parable of the prodigal son teaches that God is a loving heavenly father who will go to any lengths to have a relationship with humans. So Bell asks, does it make sense for this loving God to, in the blink of an eye at death, turn into a vicious tormenter, torturing people for all eternity? Is that what God is like?
Bell raises a lot of questions in the first chapter, which if many of us are honest, we have raised to. Right away one thing about this book irritates me. Bell often drops Bible verses into the book with little context or discussion. He does this in this chapter and does it even more throughout. The problem is that one verse pulled out of context does not necessarily mean what Bell says it means (i.e. restoration in an Old Testament prophet may have little to do with heaven). It is almost as if Bell at times gets away from his big picture, this is what God is like style, in an attempt to pile verses up to show all parts of the Bible support his view. Bell does better when he has longer discussions on passages of scripture.
Chapter two is about heaven and I agree with Bell's main point: Biblically, heaven is not primarily somewhere else. The goal of the Bible story is for Jesus to bring heaven to earth and for the two to be one and the same place. I should also mention it seems that Bell has read his NT Wright (Surprised by Hope). Bell does offer a few thoughts here that are worth pondering. I am often asked if I think we will remember this life in the next life (heaven). Apparently some preachers say God will wipe our memories or something (talk about making this life meaningless, proving Bell's point!). Bell asks how a racist will feel who gets to heaven and has to sit next to "those people." In this, he discusses the idea of purging (or flames, 1 Corinthians 3). If we resist the Holy Spirit changing us into more godly people, if we hang out to hate and greed and such, what is to make us think we will all of a sudden not have these feelings in heaven?
I often teach my students (and I feel like both CS Lewis in the Great Divorce and Tim Keller in the Reason for God have said similar things) that who you are becoming now (in Christ, by the Spirit's strength) is who you will be in the future. Heaven is you opening yourself up to God's grace for eternity and hell is you turning from God for all eternity.
From this I may as well jump into the big question then, is Bell a universalist (which is what chapter four gets in to)? If you read this book you have to say the answer is NO. The reason is, he believes in free will (perhaps he puts too much stock in free will). He believes God has given humans the freedom (and it is almost as if the love that wins is the love of God in giving us this freedom) to reject goodness, grace, love and all things godly. Further, you have this freedom for all eternity.
Now, Bell appears to pray for universalism. But in this, he is echoing God who desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy I believe). Bell desires all people to be saved. Most traditional Christians would say that a human's free will to choose to receive salvation ends at death. For Bell, God's love is so great that the offer to receive salvation remains after death. So here is really where Bell differs from traditional Christianity: humans can repent after death. Why? Because if God loves us enough to become one of us and die for us then why would a little thing like our death stop God from reaching out to us?
In making this argument Bell is often sloppy, making various mistakes. These have been noted by others. His interpretation of the Greek word "aion" in Matthew 25 is bad if for no other reason then the same word means two different things (a very long time when speaking of punishment, eternity when speaking of heaven) in a statement that is clearly parallel. Some have said the whole idea of Gehenna being a garbage dump outside Jerusalem is historically not true (I want to look that one up). Also, there is a complete lack of footnotes! This is surprising, because he had footnotes in his other books. It is also inexcusable, especially when he cites the likes of Martin Luther and Augustine and other church fathers. You simply cannot say these people said something, especially something that is not well known, and then not cite where you found it. That is just lazy. He also makes claims that his own evidence does not support: on one page he lists four ancient Christians who (may have) thought universal reconciliation was a possibility, the next page we are told that an "untold number" of Christians have believe this through the centuries. How does four become an untold number. Finally, he says Revelation ends in universal peace (Revelation 21-22) which is true, but only after a judgment (Revelation 19-20). Again, the text does not support his conclusions as easily as our first glance may think.
Also, I can see where people who want black and white answers are frustrated by Bell. On one page (and forgive my lack of page citations, I read it on the Kindle and there are no page numbers) he says "God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it" while a few chapters later he emphasizes that God gets what God wants which is all people to be saved. The second one points to universalism, the first one disallows that option. Bell seems comfortable living in the tension.
One important point Bell makes in the chapter on hell is that Jesus (and the early Christians) did not use hell to try and compel pagans to believe in God. This is something I am often stuck on. Jesus threatened very religious people with hell; Peter and Paul in Acts never used the threat of hell in evangelism. So why do so many of us today see the possibility of hell as the main motivator for evangelism? Peter and Paul's message seems to be that Jesus truly is Lord, so believe. Believe because it is true, not out of fear.
I think Bell's book has brought fear out in many critics, fear that if Christians do not believe in a literal eternal conscious suffering in hell then they will not evangelize. But again, where in the Bible is this ever the reason to evangelize? Further, if you only believe in Jesus to get yourself to heaven and you would stop believing if there was no hell, is your faith worth anything anyway? To me, that is a challenging question. Furthermore, late in the book Bell hits on evangelism in saying that if you have experienced the fullness of life Jesus offers then you will want to tell others, not out of fear or a threat, but out of joy in your own liberation.
As I read the first few chapters I kept thinking that I hope he talks about Jesus. After all, as long as we get Jesus right I think we are okay. To put it another way, if a person believes that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and humans, that Jesus' death takes away our sin on the cross, and this person truly trusts in Jesus...but also believes hell is not eternal, are we prepared to say that person is not a Christian? If so, how are we saved by grace? Are we saved by grace or by grace plus having the right theology about all kinds of peripheral issues? Along those same lines, I am not a universalist (haha, I don't think Bell is either), but I see a big difference between universalism per se (everyone is saved in the end) and Christian universalism (everyone is saved in the end through the work of Jesus Christ). The second one keeps Jesus Christ as the unique savior and Lord of the world, the first is just pluralism.
All that to say, I thought chapter five, where Bell discusses Jesus, was one of the stronger chapters in the book. He talks about how Jesus sacrificed his body and his blood made atonement for sin, which makes sense in a culture familiar with sacrifices. But in a culture like ours, we need to translate that message in ways people understand. He also shows how there are many images for Jesus' work (the atonement) in Scripture. This chapter reminded me in some ways of Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement. Clearly though, Bell holds to historic orthodoxy on Jesus Christ.
This brings us to chapter six where Bell argues that wherever truth is found, there is Jesus. Here he clearly argues for the exclusivity of Jesus, but he also argues for an inclusivity that will "include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum." Thus, Bell is clearly not one who will say only those who identify as Christians in this life will "get in". But what he does say is no different than I have heard tons of Christians say over the years, based on various scriptures, that there will be surprises when we see who is in and who is out (though of course, Bell would not like those words). Even Billy Graham said this same sort of thing: salvation is through Jesus, but in this life we cannot know who will be saved through Jesus (I think even Calvin said we cannot know who the elect are and should not act as if we do).
In the end, I am not sure what to say about this book. I agree with parts, other parts I disagree with. I have asked many of the same questions, as have many Christians I have spoken with. I think that even those Christians who may agree with Bell's position will see parts of this book as poorly argued (and I have read reviews by such people, they do say that). I guess I will say two things. One, Bell does appear to hold to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and salvation only through him, which to me is the most important issue. Two, any book that drives people back to scripture to search for truth should be welcomed.
Finally, I am glad I have read this book so now when I see videos on youtube where people say "universalists like Rob Bell" I can tell they are either not being fair or have not read the book.
I want to give the book two stars, taking points off for the many shortcomings I noted above. But unlike most books, this book made me think. Even if I do not agree with it, I did "like" it. So three stars it is, and hopefully I don't lose my job!
I'll start with chapter seven, where Bell discusses the parable of the Prodigal Son. I think this discussion points to the root of so much of the criticism of the book. The parable of the prodigal son is not about heaven and hell. It is simply the story of a son who takes his inheritance from his father, wastes it, returns to his father expecting nothing and being received with love. Seeing this, his older brother, who has always been faithful, refuses to join the party at the return of the younger son. Reflecting on this, Bell questions whether hell and heaven might not be the same place. After all, both sons are at the party. It is a matter of the two sons' attitudes.
I have had discussions with friends of mine who are conservative, Reformed (perhaps we could say fundamentalist) Christians. They have asked the same question. If you set yourself against God, hating God, wanting nothing to do with God, then hell is not "separation" from God but being in God's presence. So perhaps, we speculate, heaven and hell are the same place, being with God. Those who love God and thus desire this, it is heaven; those who hate God, it is hell.
More to the point of Bell's book, I think there is a difference in how Bell, and those like him, approach theology when compared to more traditional evangelical theologians. Traditionally when faced with an issue, such as hell, evangelicals would go to scripture, look up all the verses that talk about hell and use them to build their theology of hell. In this many theologians look at the Bible almost like a scientist looks at nature: as something filled with information to be picked up, pieced together and interpreted. Bell does not come at the Bible in this way, he looks at it as a big story (I believe his church's website talks a lot about "narrative theology"). So when Bell comes to an issue like hell, the answer comes not necessarily from all the Bible verses on hell, but from what the whole Bible tells us God is like. Thus, the parable of the prodigal son tells us a lot about what God is like, so it makes sense for Bell to include it.
So I think there is more going on in the clash between Bell and traditional Christians than simply the theology of hell. This is a symptom of a deeper root which is how to read the Bible and do theology in the first place.
Throughout the book, Bell is more interested in raising questions then in giving solid answers. Again, the parable of the prodigal son teaches that God is a loving heavenly father who will go to any lengths to have a relationship with humans. So Bell asks, does it make sense for this loving God to, in the blink of an eye at death, turn into a vicious tormenter, torturing people for all eternity? Is that what God is like?
Bell raises a lot of questions in the first chapter, which if many of us are honest, we have raised to. Right away one thing about this book irritates me. Bell often drops Bible verses into the book with little context or discussion. He does this in this chapter and does it even more throughout. The problem is that one verse pulled out of context does not necessarily mean what Bell says it means (i.e. restoration in an Old Testament prophet may have little to do with heaven). It is almost as if Bell at times gets away from his big picture, this is what God is like style, in an attempt to pile verses up to show all parts of the Bible support his view. Bell does better when he has longer discussions on passages of scripture.
Chapter two is about heaven and I agree with Bell's main point: Biblically, heaven is not primarily somewhere else. The goal of the Bible story is for Jesus to bring heaven to earth and for the two to be one and the same place. I should also mention it seems that Bell has read his NT Wright (Surprised by Hope). Bell does offer a few thoughts here that are worth pondering. I am often asked if I think we will remember this life in the next life (heaven). Apparently some preachers say God will wipe our memories or something (talk about making this life meaningless, proving Bell's point!). Bell asks how a racist will feel who gets to heaven and has to sit next to "those people." In this, he discusses the idea of purging (or flames, 1 Corinthians 3). If we resist the Holy Spirit changing us into more godly people, if we hang out to hate and greed and such, what is to make us think we will all of a sudden not have these feelings in heaven?
I often teach my students (and I feel like both CS Lewis in the Great Divorce and Tim Keller in the Reason for God have said similar things) that who you are becoming now (in Christ, by the Spirit's strength) is who you will be in the future. Heaven is you opening yourself up to God's grace for eternity and hell is you turning from God for all eternity.
From this I may as well jump into the big question then, is Bell a universalist (which is what chapter four gets in to)? If you read this book you have to say the answer is NO. The reason is, he believes in free will (perhaps he puts too much stock in free will). He believes God has given humans the freedom (and it is almost as if the love that wins is the love of God in giving us this freedom) to reject goodness, grace, love and all things godly. Further, you have this freedom for all eternity.
Now, Bell appears to pray for universalism. But in this, he is echoing God who desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy I believe). Bell desires all people to be saved. Most traditional Christians would say that a human's free will to choose to receive salvation ends at death. For Bell, God's love is so great that the offer to receive salvation remains after death. So here is really where Bell differs from traditional Christianity: humans can repent after death. Why? Because if God loves us enough to become one of us and die for us then why would a little thing like our death stop God from reaching out to us?
In making this argument Bell is often sloppy, making various mistakes. These have been noted by others. His interpretation of the Greek word "aion" in Matthew 25 is bad if for no other reason then the same word means two different things (a very long time when speaking of punishment, eternity when speaking of heaven) in a statement that is clearly parallel. Some have said the whole idea of Gehenna being a garbage dump outside Jerusalem is historically not true (I want to look that one up). Also, there is a complete lack of footnotes! This is surprising, because he had footnotes in his other books. It is also inexcusable, especially when he cites the likes of Martin Luther and Augustine and other church fathers. You simply cannot say these people said something, especially something that is not well known, and then not cite where you found it. That is just lazy. He also makes claims that his own evidence does not support: on one page he lists four ancient Christians who (may have) thought universal reconciliation was a possibility, the next page we are told that an "untold number" of Christians have believe this through the centuries. How does four become an untold number. Finally, he says Revelation ends in universal peace (Revelation 21-22) which is true, but only after a judgment (Revelation 19-20). Again, the text does not support his conclusions as easily as our first glance may think.
Also, I can see where people who want black and white answers are frustrated by Bell. On one page (and forgive my lack of page citations, I read it on the Kindle and there are no page numbers) he says "God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it" while a few chapters later he emphasizes that God gets what God wants which is all people to be saved. The second one points to universalism, the first one disallows that option. Bell seems comfortable living in the tension.
One important point Bell makes in the chapter on hell is that Jesus (and the early Christians) did not use hell to try and compel pagans to believe in God. This is something I am often stuck on. Jesus threatened very religious people with hell; Peter and Paul in Acts never used the threat of hell in evangelism. So why do so many of us today see the possibility of hell as the main motivator for evangelism? Peter and Paul's message seems to be that Jesus truly is Lord, so believe. Believe because it is true, not out of fear.
I think Bell's book has brought fear out in many critics, fear that if Christians do not believe in a literal eternal conscious suffering in hell then they will not evangelize. But again, where in the Bible is this ever the reason to evangelize? Further, if you only believe in Jesus to get yourself to heaven and you would stop believing if there was no hell, is your faith worth anything anyway? To me, that is a challenging question. Furthermore, late in the book Bell hits on evangelism in saying that if you have experienced the fullness of life Jesus offers then you will want to tell others, not out of fear or a threat, but out of joy in your own liberation.
As I read the first few chapters I kept thinking that I hope he talks about Jesus. After all, as long as we get Jesus right I think we are okay. To put it another way, if a person believes that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and humans, that Jesus' death takes away our sin on the cross, and this person truly trusts in Jesus...but also believes hell is not eternal, are we prepared to say that person is not a Christian? If so, how are we saved by grace? Are we saved by grace or by grace plus having the right theology about all kinds of peripheral issues? Along those same lines, I am not a universalist (haha, I don't think Bell is either), but I see a big difference between universalism per se (everyone is saved in the end) and Christian universalism (everyone is saved in the end through the work of Jesus Christ). The second one keeps Jesus Christ as the unique savior and Lord of the world, the first is just pluralism.
All that to say, I thought chapter five, where Bell discusses Jesus, was one of the stronger chapters in the book. He talks about how Jesus sacrificed his body and his blood made atonement for sin, which makes sense in a culture familiar with sacrifices. But in a culture like ours, we need to translate that message in ways people understand. He also shows how there are many images for Jesus' work (the atonement) in Scripture. This chapter reminded me in some ways of Scot McKnight's A Community Called Atonement. Clearly though, Bell holds to historic orthodoxy on Jesus Christ.
This brings us to chapter six where Bell argues that wherever truth is found, there is Jesus. Here he clearly argues for the exclusivity of Jesus, but he also argues for an inclusivity that will "include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum." Thus, Bell is clearly not one who will say only those who identify as Christians in this life will "get in". But what he does say is no different than I have heard tons of Christians say over the years, based on various scriptures, that there will be surprises when we see who is in and who is out (though of course, Bell would not like those words). Even Billy Graham said this same sort of thing: salvation is through Jesus, but in this life we cannot know who will be saved through Jesus (I think even Calvin said we cannot know who the elect are and should not act as if we do).
In the end, I am not sure what to say about this book. I agree with parts, other parts I disagree with. I have asked many of the same questions, as have many Christians I have spoken with. I think that even those Christians who may agree with Bell's position will see parts of this book as poorly argued (and I have read reviews by such people, they do say that). I guess I will say two things. One, Bell does appear to hold to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and salvation only through him, which to me is the most important issue. Two, any book that drives people back to scripture to search for truth should be welcomed.
Finally, I am glad I have read this book so now when I see videos on youtube where people say "universalists like Rob Bell" I can tell they are either not being fair or have not read the book.
I want to give the book two stars, taking points off for the many shortcomings I noted above. But unlike most books, this book made me think. Even if I do not agree with it, I did "like" it. So three stars it is, and hopefully I don't lose my job!
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
I heard about this book on a podcast and, when I saw this was a quick four-hour listen on audio, decided to give it a try. This expansive view of Jesus -- one who loves and is not here to simply save us from punishment of the Father -- resonates with me. I thought that the idea the author's idea of hell being a separation from God on earth (rather than some fiery place we are bound for as an eternal punishment for sin) made a lot of sense.
This book was written very conversationally, and I think it works well on audio.
This book was written very conversationally, and I think it works well on audio.
One of the most compelling Christian books I have ever read. Tackled subjects that I have wrestled with for years with Biblical references to support and clarify.
Recommended by Ellen J. Read her review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/172350934?book_show_action=false&page=1
Check our catalog: http://encore.cooklib.org/iii/encore/search/C__Slove%20wins%20bell__Orightresult__U?lang=eng&suite=gold
Check our catalog: http://encore.cooklib.org/iii/encore/search/C__Slove%20wins%20bell__Orightresult__U?lang=eng&suite=gold
This book has stirred up quite a bit of controversy lately. Rob Bell's views on heaven and hell may not be what every Christian believes, but I think they are interesting and he puts up a good argument. I loved this book, not necessarily because I agreed with everything he said (I'm not sure that I do agree with him 100%) but I love his basic premise: Love Wins. That is the number one thing I took away from this book. It's something I've believed for a very long time. Christians need to stop focusing on preaching the "fire and brimstone" and telling people they're going to hell and start focusing on Jesus' love, and sharing that with people instead. I do agree with that completely.
hopeful
informative
reflective
fast-paced
Interesting perspective, appreciate pushback against harmful fire & brimstone theology
Very quick, very intriguing read that challenges the dominant Christian teaching of salvation, heaven, and hell. I don't know what I think about this yet, but I'm interested to explore this topic more.
This is probably the most "controversial" book I've read in a while.. and I loved it! Rob Bell answers some tough questions in an honest and open way. He asks that you put aside what you learned in bible boot camp, and really think about what the Bible says. This book will challenge your mind and heart, in a wonderful way.