Love Wins
2011 April 3
Do not miss Donald Miller’s review of the book Love Wins. He begins with this paragraph:
“I confess I read this book because of all the hoopla on the internet. John Piper hates it, Mark Driscoll wants to say how much he hates it but is tired of launching his enemies onto the New York Times bestsellers list so he talks about it without talking about it. People everywhere are talking about it.”
Then the review takes a few unexpected turns.
– - – -
Now, from the back cover of the other Love Wins
“God loves us.
God offers us everlasting life
by grace, freely, through no
merit on our part.
Unless you do not respond the
right way.
Then God will torture you forever.
In Hell.”
Huh?
36 Responses
leave one →
Thanks for the laugh!! BTW, Miller’s review is spot on!!
Too good.
DM is fun-ny.
So, when are you going to do a review of the other “Love Wins”? Your blog fans eagerly await…..
Annie – I got 75% of the way through the book and either left it at my parents’ house in MO or on my AA flight. I’m on a bad losing streak. I need everything stapled to my clothes.
Absolutely hilarious!
So which one were you reading?
Tim Challies linked to the Miller “review” a couple days ago – too funny. Of course, Challies review of the “newer edition” was very good too, just not as funny(http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book).
Well, review the 75% you did read, please.
Ugh. Please don’t link to Challies’ review (on practically anything). How a fundamentalist with no theological or philosophical training gets the attention that guy gets is just a testament to the nodus operandi of Fox News, Glenn Beck and their ilk. What utter rubbish.
Perhaps you’d prefer Mike Horton’s review, he has lots of theological training & teaches at a seminary, or maybe Kevin DeYoung? http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/?s=bell
JB – Thanks for the reference. While Horton may be more qualified that Challies to opine on these topics, his comments fall short in at least two (3) respects. First, he just resorts to name-calling and posturing – he doesn’t really challenge any of Bell’s statements (let alone cite them) in any meaningful sense. Calling Bell a pagan and misstating his beliefs doesn’t give me much confidence in Horton’s treatment of the matter.
Second, he (and Tim Keller, based on his comments) haven’t read the book carefully (much of Horton’s post seems to be based on what he’s “heard” about the content of the book) because they incorrectly conclude Bell doesn’t believe in Hell – which clearly incorrect both from even a casual reading of Love Wins and even more explicitly clarified in any number of interviews Bell has given on the topic.
Errr…that “(3)” should’ve been (2). I opted to delete a third point criticizing the fact that Horton, et al, who you referenced are Calvinists – a worldview I fundamentally disagree with.
Yes, let’s say it up front: Calvinists aren’t going to like the book. But people who believe Calvinist theology doesn’t fit the biblical story (i.e., people like me) aren’t particularly bothered by that. It feels like something of an endorsement.
JB,
It seems apparent enough that the CofC has a long history or skepticism regarding theology schools and people with initials after their names. I was raised to think that anyone that could actually read Greek and Hebrew was suspect. One Bible professor at ACU ridiculed another one that was a Harvard ThD. while he was substituting in the Harvard man’s class, in which I was a student. The last CofC I attended – I think the largest one east of Nashville – Several of the elders acknowledged that theology was a dirty word. Systematic Theology was mentioned from the pulpit several times, but only to ridicule it.
Do you think the CofC has changed so much as to be interested in what Mike Horton or Kevin DeYoung think?
I read one review of the book provided by a link on this very blog. The author of that review had actually read the book and he affirmed that Bell is not a universalist, well at least not a traditional universalist. What in the world does that mean? Almost everyone gets saved but a few are annihilated or something else altogether?
Why the promotion of this book? Guess I’m just confused, but I’ve been confused by the CofC for some time now.
Cheers,
Geezer
Er..Geezer…I think you misinterpreted the earlier comments (or you’re commenting on something other than this post/thread). My comments were precisely that Challies has no theological pedigree or training – clearly not that theological education/training is irrelevant or unnecessary – just the opposite. Also, your perspective seems to be dated and to represent a shrinking minority viewpoint within the C of C.
Hi Jeff,
I really only had JB’s comments in mind. While I do consider myself something of a Calvinist, they are not the only subset of Christians that are not universalists, or even, well not traditonal universalists. Many Lutherans (esp. Missouri Synod), Arminians, semi-Pelagians, and Pelagians do believe in a real Satan and a real hell.
The S-C movement had traditionally believed in hell, not b/c Thomas Campbell was a Calvinist, but b/c he and the rest of the influential folks were Christians. B.W. Stone was not the least bit shy about rejecting important Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the hypostatic union and penal substitution atonement, but to my knowledge he never approached any belief in any kind of universalism.
Again, I have NOT read the book. I am not that familiar with Bell, but I am not that favorable impressed with the little bit or his writing I have read – perhaps that is just me. I don’t know if Bell is any kind of a unversalist. I did read a review from a link that was posted earlier on this blog. That review said Bell was NOT a universalist, well, not a traditional universalist. I am not sure what that means.
Hesed,
Geezer
Jeff,
One last thing. I know that the CofC universities are not so narrow as they were 40 years ago. (Foy E. Wallace Jr. is no longer our hero.) For that matter Harvard and Princeton and Yale are not the same as they were 40 years ago and 40 years ago was rather different than 40 years before then. After all, B.B. Warfield was once at Princeton and Harvard was a Calvinistic School before Unitarianism became popular.
However, there are lots of CofCs that are still rather narrow in their thinking – and I am talking large congregations, not just the 50-150 member congregations. I hear people from large congregations in the Dallas area complain that ACU Bible grads don’t want to work for even 500-100 member CofCs b/c they are too traditional. The rather large CofC congregation (east of Nashville) that I referred to previously – it was only a very few years ago that I heard Systematic Theology ridiculed from the pulpit. I suppose that since many/most Systematic Theology texts are Calvinistic and somewhat scholastic that should not be a surprise.
Hesed,
Geezer
Geezer – Thanks for the add’l perspective. I didn’t mean to imply you couldn’t find plenty of anti-intellectualism in Cs of C if you looked for it (as among the Baptists and Methodists, too, for that matter to the same extent).
Regarding Bell, as you say you haven’t read the book, it should be clarified that he absolutely states he believes in hell. The issue he seems to raise is whether it is temporally infinite or finite.
Mike: “I need everything stapled to my clothes.” LOL
The “genius traveling” code is in above statement. I know it well.
While working for the director of the State Symphony Orchestra in Mexico City I experienced a phone conversation you’ll probably empathize with immediately.
You brought back fond memories, dear Mike. LOL
Maestro had left my office only about 3 hours previously. He fulfilled his compulsion to call me every 20 minutes by phoning from a phone [waaay before cell phones] in the airport. As he chattered about all the details and phone calls he wanted to be sure were going to be accomplished before he returned the conversation flowed in sequence and orderliness …. without missing a beat or changing volume, nor tone [really monotone ] I heard: “don’t forget to check with the concert hall for my return – call the bank, cancel my checking account, the credit card companies, cancelling them, call the orchestra library and air me new scores for my trip, the travel agent asking that a new ticket to London and for following itinerary be sent to my hotel in New York, and I’ll need a new passport, …” “Wait,” I interrupted, “Maestro, what are you talking about?”
In the same monotone, “Someone just lifted my briefcase, wallet and card holder, and I don’t even have money nor any way to pay for hotel transportation. How do I get there?”
Without going into all the details, everything was replaced, got him to the hotel in New York, new passport set up for him, documents, etc. etc. etc. Every time he traveled he lost 1/2 his belongings somewhere along the way.
And to others in deep conversation here, my apologies for interrupting with this fond memory, totally off subject. Couldn’t help sharing this memory. LOL Thank you all for your gracious forgiveness!
jeff_r,
Thanks for the info that Bell affirms the existence of hell. I wonder who he thinks populates hell – just Satan and his demons? plus all those that have not trusted in Jesus? plus only those that have actively sustained a rejection of Jesus? Does he have a position regarding the state of humanity – both the saved and unsaved? Do the saved have real spiritual bodies and live on a renewed earth or are they disembodied spirits?
Edward Fudge has a book (The Fire that Consumes) in which he suggests there is a period of conscious torment for the lost and then ultimately annihilation – the eternality of hell is the finality of it – there is no return from annihilation. I believe FF Bruce wrote the intro or forward to the book. He disagreed with Fudge’s conclusion, but he makes the point that little has been researched/written on the subject of hell in light of its relative importance.
Thanks for the info,
Geezer
Hi JeffR, Sorry, I was thinking that Horton’s review of the book (after he read it) was included on the Whitehorse Inn’s blog but it turns out I had followed a link to another web site. You can find them at these links.
part 1 here: http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/bells-hell-a-review-by-michael-horton-part-1
and it ends with part 9 here: http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/bells-hell-a-review-by-michael-horton-part-9 with links on each page to parts 2-8.
Geezer: You may be right. The CofC has changed some but it may be a case of the more things change, the more they stay the same. I grew up in the CofC & graduated from ACU ages ago. I used to think that Calvin had it all wrong, because that’s what I’d been taught (I also remember that many CofC’ers thought Systematic Theology was a four letter word). It took many years of studying the Bible & talking to Christians from other denominations before I moved to a more Reformed/Calvinist position. I still don’t agree with them about everything (especially not the covenental way they see baptism) but do see reformed theology in the Bible more than any other view.
I haven’t read Bell’s book and probably won’t. Between the few podcasts of his sermons I’ve heard, videos I’ve seen and now reviews of the book I’m not favorably impressed with him. I read the same review you mentioned & came to the conclusion that he probably is a Universalist, even though that reviewer said he wasn’t, before I’d even read the other reviews.
Kathy – your story of your old boss is great but I bet he was hard to work for.
God bless,
JB
Geezer,
Read the book!
But be warned, bell isn’t writing systematic theology, and he’s not writing a dissertation. He’s more of a poet, which is what bothers many of the neoreformed. He isn’t interested in hard and fast answers, but asking important questions and letting the reader determine what kind of view they have of god. He does propose that a god that tells us we have to worship him or he’s gonna fry us seems, shall we say, a bit sociopathic. And that he doesn’t believe that’s who god is. He hints at his view throughout the book by proposing an alternative way of viewing god, buy again, no firm positions or reasoning why he’s reached those positions. Cause many aren’t interested in that.
I, being “not a traditional universalist” would say that Jesus death and subsequent resurrection announced gods forgiveness, and our gospel to announce isthat that forgiveness is here, god is putting the pieces back together, and he’s given us faith in resurrection and his spirit ao that we can partner with him in the salvation of the world. Salvation being, not from god being pissed, but from the results of our own rejection of god and the results of that.
So a non traditional universlaist such as myself would say all men have been forgiven, but not all have accepted salvation. Some refuse to believe they’ve been freed and forgiven, and there is a fire that will consume that which is broken in them. For some, there may not be much left. But this leaves that decision to god.
So , did Jesus die to turn away the wrath of God ? The sacrifice of atonement or the older word propitiation , does it have anything to do with God being just and justifying those who respond in obedient belief and if some do not , then will the unblieving just get a pass and and eternal life with God along with the believing ?
My last comment seems to be lost somewhere so trying again.
JeffR – Sorry, I thought that Horton’s review of the book after he’d read it was posted at the Whitehorseinn blog but I was mistaken, it’s linked from there to another blog & has 9 parts – http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/bells-hell-a-review-by-michael-horton-part-1.
Geezer, you may be right about the CofC. I was raised CofC & graduated from ACU; I’d even been trying to convince my teen to go there. I have become more Reformed over the years & enjoy listening to the guys at the Whitehorse Inn (& I’ve even learned from *gasp*
Lutherans & some of the best sermons I’ve ever heard were at a Lutheran church but I can’t get past their communion) because even though I don’t agree with everything they say I learn a lot from them.
But I don’t think that Reformed Christians are the only ones who will have issues with what Bell is promoting. Doing quick google & bing searches for reviews of the book I found several that I doubt are Reformed but they all seems to disagree with many of Bell’s opinions –
* http://www.russellmoore.com/2011/03/15/the-blood-drained-gospel-of-rob-bell/
* http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2011/03/23/bell-the-book-and-a-candle/
* http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2011/03/bells-logic.html?iframe=true&width=95%&height=95%
* http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/rob_bell_on_hell_part_1
God Bless
Mike – It isn’t just Calvinists that take issue with the Bell’s opinions. I talked to a few women at Bible study yesterday that are from non-Calvinist denominations (Calvary Chapel, Anglican & Baptist) & none agreed with Bell.
Ray, maybe you should read the book and let Rob Bell speak for himself. I haven’t read it. I think Bell has some interesting ideas, but altogether I’m not particularly fond of his half-hipster style. But if you really want to know what Bell thinks, you’ll get the clearest answer by reading the book instead of asking others to explain it to you.
Q ,
My questions were not due to Bell . I would not critique him without reading the book , which I will order and read.
A fellow teacher friend of mine velcros things to herself, like the remote control to her projector. Every time I say, “Guys, look around. Do you see the remote to the projector/my coffee/my dry-erase marker/my file folder my students say, ‘You know, Mrs. ______, velcros her stuff to her shirt.’”
I personally am more fond of having my students look for the things I have mislaid; however, I am one step away from sporting an apron with wide pockets to store all my stuff in (my coffee probably couldn’t be stored in it; maybe a hat with cup holders for it?) . Maybe you should get a big apron? Or a velcro outfit?
* should have a question mark after “folder.” Oops!
Jamie – I’ve been suspicious that velcro is the answer! Or perhaps everything needs to be like my iPhone. When I lose it, I can go to me.com and it’ll locate it for me.
I’m with you there, Mike. I usually locate it, lock it and send myself a message reminding myself not to be such a doofus. (This is because I typically leave it on the piano….).
Hi Justin,
My daughter was out for dinner tonight. As usual, we discussed theology. She is a well educated woman – five degrees; a B.S. in biology and a B.A. in Humanities (Bible and German) from ACU); two Masters and a PhD, all in evolutionary biology – scholarships all the way thank God or I would have had to work forever. She has never been shy in disagreeing with her father about anything – theology included.
She made the point that she has known many people in the CofC and other denominations that are unwilling to even consider a particular point of view (e.g. predestination) and that if that is the case there is no point in having the conversation. I agree with her so maybe that’s where we are.
She has not read Bells’s book, but she has read several reviews of it by people who have read the book – so Piper is excluded. What she had to say to me was that the reviews do not claim that Bell explicitly states he is a universalist, but it is impossible not to infer it. I wonder if you, as a non traditional universalist would agree with that assessment?
At this point in time, I am not willing to devote the time to read the book as I acknowledge I am not willing to seriously consider that perspective (universal salvation) right now. I might consider reading it if you were willing to seriously consider that some people are saved and some people are lost, even if their ultimate fate might be a period of conscious torment followed by annihilation rather than eternal conscious torment.
I kinda got the impression you were suggesting the part of a person not worth saving might be burned up, but the part that was worth saving might be/might be saved. Maybe I’m just confused, but I still wonder if you agree that it is impossible not to infer that Bell’s book suggests some form of universalism.
Please don’t request that I read his book unless you’re willing to read a book I recommend to you.
Peace,
Geezer
Geezer—
I used to believe in eternal hell. I believed that a lot longer than whatever conglomeration of theology I believe now.
And I remember the point where I felt something was wrong…. When a friend of mine who was an atheist, but a damn good person, and I were having a conversation and I had to tell her I thought she would go to hell when she died.
And then I started wondering what kind of good news is it that god starts a world knowing the majority of people are going to hell.
All that to say I understand being hesitant to look into universalism or Quasi universalism or whatever it is I believe because I haven’t always thought this way. I’m certainly not a close-minded person.
And yes… I think I fall somewhere in between an annihilationist and a “universalist”. But I’m no expert theologian. Just a guy who found a new way of thinking about the good news so that it really seems good and something worth sharing .
Is it impossible to believe in both God’s wrath and universalism? Check in on the series of posts by Richard Beck at http://www.experimentaltheology.blogspot.com.
Here’s a taste:
“A big theme in my recent posts about universalism was that to understand the language of heaven and hell–God’s punishment and God’s grace–you need to understand the prophetic imagination. And the key insight is this: God’s punishment is not opposed to God’s grace. Too many Christians have a bifurcated view of God’s punishment and God’s grace, that it’s an either/or. For many Christians you either get grace/heaven or you get punishment/hell. But you don’t see this bifurcated view in the prophets.”
re: Geezer comment: Edward Fudge has a book (The Fire that Consumes) in which he suggests there is a period of conscious torment for the lost and then ultimately annihilation – the eternality of hell is the finality of it – there is no return from annihilation.
How does he know (at least enough to make the suggestion)?
The Fire That Consumes is a careful investigation of every passage in the Bible on the final end of unrepentant sinners. It also explores the noncanonical intertestamental literature. After concluding that Scripture does not teach the traditional view, the book moves through church history to see why the church began to teach unending torment and how that became so popular. A revised, enlarged, updated Third Edition is due any day from Cascade Books (Wipf & Stock) with a foreword by Dr. Richard Bauckham of Cambridge University. For free resources on same topic see http://www.EdwardFudge.com/written/fire.html .