Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” – Review Chapter 7
“Love Wins” now has a Study Guide
Rob’s Gospel
Chapter 7
The Good News Is Better Than That
In chapter 7 of Love Wins
Everyone loves this story but interpretations are diverse. Rob’s interpretation fills the entire chapter.
The characters and themes are:
- One father and two sons.
- The father was respected but misunderstood by both sons.
- One son, the younger, was impulsive, wasteful and self-indulgent. The other son, the older, was slavishly dutiful, arrogantly reliable but self-satisfied.
- The father is the God figure and the two sons represent different types of sinners.
Those are the obvious details. Rob makes the following observation.
There is only one story being told but each character in the story sees it differently. Rob calls these different perspectives, not sub plots, but different interpretations on the main plot. Each person puts a different emotional and spiritual spin on what was happening and it clearly reveals what’s in the hearts. Read more
Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” – Review Chapter 2
“Love Wins” now has a Study Guide
Rob’s Heaven
Chapter 2
“Here Is The New There”
Chapter 2 is the longest chapter in Love Wins
Although references to hell are included, the focus in this chapter is heaven.
Rob disagrees with the “we’re here” and “heaven is there” perspective and brings up several points to make his complaint:
- He implies that common teachings about heaven’s other-wordly bliss, hell’s torment and the ease with which one can miss heaven and be swallowed up by torment, forever, comes perilously close to traumatizing children causing them to stumble. Something Jesus gravely warned us not to do, p. 22. This, however, is not the point of the chapter.
- He mockingly mentions the popular but questionable images associated with heaven (that no one really believes anyway): white robes, St. Peter at the gate, everyone having so much fun they forget about family and friends grinding it out forever in the other place, pp. 24-25, along with images of floating on clouds, perfect hair and singing in perfect pitch, p. 57.
- A lot of what Rob says hinges on his interpretation of the interaction between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler (RYR), Matt. 19 & Luke 18 (pp. 26-31). I’ll say more just now.
- Rob speaks of “eternal life” – or heaven as we think of it – as two consecutive ages (aions) or periods of time. The temporary one we live in now leads to the eternal one that follows. Most refer to the second one as the millennial kingdom. Rob suggests the two are inseparably connected so heaven is both now and later and it only follows that what we do in this age is important for preparing for and determining what we will do in the next, pp. 30-31
- Rob does say the second age will include all nations (p. 34), will exist on planet earth (pp. 34-35) and he points out that these ideas are well established in the Old Testament (pp. 32-33).
- Judgment and Justice will prevail in the age to come (pp. 36-39) but will be balanced by grace and mercy (p. 39), implying that grace and mercy are equally active in the next life as they are now. There will be an increase of justice not the reduction of grace and mercy.
- Later in the chapter he expands the definition of aion (age) to mean “an intensity of experience that transcends time,” p. 57. Rob’s words: “To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection with God, p. 59.
- He also makes no direct reference to the eternal state, which most expect will follow the millennial age, the second aion, but he doesn’t deny it either. His mention of the gates of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:25) in chapter 4 – Does God Get What God Wants? – implies it.
His purpose in this chapter is to change our perspective on “heaven” and to suggest a better way to interact with it now, in this life. And the evidence that one is ready now, for heaven in the next life is character, which is demonstrated not through religious ritual but through personal morals and social justice.
Rob is promoting the life we live outside of religious ritual but he is not suggesting it is contrary to it. A life that is mostly ceremonial offers little for the rest of the world to connect with. A well established life outside of, but in agreement with faith, is relatable and can have an evangelistic effect, the thing we are working for.
His primary arguments are based on one meaning of the Greek word “Aion,” age or period of time. He takes an accurate but very narrow approach to this particular word. Read more
Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” – Review Chapter 1
“Love Wins” now has a Study Guide
Rob’s Premise Quandary
Chapter 1
“What About The Flat Tire?”
In his latest book, Love Wins
One question that permeates the discourse is: what does it really mean to say “God is Love” and how can we balance His love with the idea of eternal, everlasting, never ending wrath? Rob says, “What is God like?” is the recurring question throughout the book. (p. 182)
He gives us a broad sweeping statement of his focus on the cover:
A book about heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived.
And in the book he asks many searching questions implying ideas that fly in the face of common understandings. But, he codifies none of them.
The book focuses mostly on when a person arrives at heaven or hell and how permanent the placement is once there. It’s mostly philosophical but Rob does include several Scriptures.
What makes his approach unusual is even though he clearly challenges our accepted beliefs he makes no statement of faith nor does he provide a systematized list of doctrines, do’s and don’t's, spiritual how-to’s or salvation formulas .
In that regard he definitely changes the rules. Read more
What Rob Bell Believes
What in the world does Rob Bell believe?
It may sound strange but that is what people are asking.
Rob, of course, is well known through his books, DVD’s and tours, at least by name, but just when you think you’re getting to know him he adds a new twist.
His latest book, “Love Wins” is a good example. It has everyone worriedly pondering or loudly condemning and the negative responses aren’t very original:
Blasphemer, false prophet, liar, wolf in sheep’s clothing and added to that are many cleverly worded headlines:
- Rob Bell No Hell
- Osama now in heaven: “Love Wins”
- Love Wins, Logic Loses
- Hell, Bell and Evangelism
- Bell’s god
…And more.
Don’t react too quickly though. These tags are used so frequently against even marginally different opinions they’ve lost their significance. You get the impression that because those words are in the Bible they must be employed loudly and often or we aren’t doing the most important part of our job.
Rob says…
For some, the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame and slander others who don’t articulate matters of faith as they do, p. 183.
But, in Rob’s case it is important to understand why these titles are being invoked. He is rethinking and rewording untouchable theological issues – heaven and hell – so he is at the top of the bad guy list. Actually he’s been the most recent and radical bad guy for a long time but, never mind the camel’s back, his last book is the bail that breaks every bone in the camel’s body.
Of course, even if Rob were all these bad things it is really quite silly to broadcast it. I never heard of Rob until a high profile preacher attacked him publicly and then I was intrigued. How could I not read his books? His DVD’s became the new forbidden fruit.
Well, once you read his books you realize that Rob is just a guy and none of the negatives apply. You might not agree with him and he is way out there on some issues but that doesn’t mean he is:
- Lost
- Liberal
- A liar
- Blaspheming
- A heretic
- Or an infidel
…Like so many people are suggesting. Read more
Reflections On “Love Wins”
Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins,”
Not “believe” but think and I’m certain that’s a good thing. Only a thinking person can believe, right?
But…
Even before the book was released the flurry of accusations, disavowals and condemnations – proclaimed, of course, with “hear I stand” affirmations of Rob’s unquestionable infidelity – made one think the anti-Christ had surely arrived. And these responses were based on nothing more than a pre-release video ad.
The ad was provocative, yes, but not the basis for laying criminal charges.
That didn’t matter though. With little evidence and no identifiable crime, stake burning mobs began gathering.
And after the release? Whooooooooooa! The barrage of heated acrimonious remarks was enough to melt glaciers.
I try to avoid universal everybody’s-doing-it statements but it definitely seems like “everyone” took aim at Rob. For all the right reasons, naturally. I don’t doubt a few hangers-on will keep the firestorm fueled for some time to come.
The question is how do you make sense of all the noise?
Providing a list of every naysayer or attempting to analyze every contrary remark would take an endless amount of time so I won’t go there. I will, however, focus on one review for discussion purposes. The writer is Kevin DeYoung who is reformed (lower case “r” for me – talk more about that just now). His remarks are representative of the negative reactions so he is a good place to start.
His first response – I feel more might be coming – was posted on The Gospel Coalition and I will excerpt a few remarks to illustrate the presumptuous ranting manner in which Bell’s ideas are being attacked.
My purpose, by the way, is not to encourage anyone to agree or disagree with Bell or DeYoung. These two men don’t represent the opposite ends of the good vs evil spectrum. Thankfully, one isn’t absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong.
There are more than just two possible conclusions and according to what Bell said in the book he understands that. The problem is DeYoung doesn’t. He and those like him allow for no divergence on certain ideas and assume Bell must be “completely” wrong because he opened up discussion on ideas that are “absolutely” fixed. Like so many others, his write-up is laced with the language of assumed-understandings from beginning to end.
His title reads: “God Is Still Holy And What You Learned In Sunday School Is Still True…”
And to mimic Rob’s approach to such absolutist remarks…
Really? Which Sunday School is that? The American one, the English one, the Scottish one, the Irish one, the Italian one, the German one, the one in Switzerland or Spain or the Eastern Orthodox one? Was it the Stone Age one or the Iron Age one or the Middle Ages one?
Let’s be clear. From what I understand some of those Sunday schools agree with Bell.
Truth? DeYoung, like so many others, speaks from a very narrow, near history perspective – mostly opinion – and quotes people who endorse that perspective. I’m being generous to call it perspective, a word that implies a long broad view.
His introduction provides a very generalized, hazy rendering of Rob’s primary point and includes a summary of his accusations, on which he expands in the interminably long exposé that follows:
The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible.
I’ll talk more about it later but for the record, long winded statements are typical of reformed teachers and there is good reason for it. The heart of their teachings is so irrational, illogical and flaky they resort to long drawn out twist-and-turn, hard-to-follow discussions just to give the appearance of intellectual superiority. Taking this approach diverts attention from their senseless confusion to what seems to be excessive cerebral activity.
Who can argue against that?
However, not only is the good news better than that, as Rob would say, it really isn’t so complicated either.
DeYoung repeats or alludes to his accusation points ad nauseam throughout the article but only as assertions. Any proof he offers is from people whose opinions mirror his. At one point he says:
If Bell is right, then historic orthodoxy is toxic and terrible. But if the traditional view of heaven and hell are right, Bell is blaspheming. I do not use the word lightly, just like Bell probably chose “toxic” quite deliberately. Both sides cannot be right.
Several thoughts come to mind, if you’re thinking:
- Can’t both sides be wrong? DeYoung assumes he must be right if Rob is wrong. Even his use of terms like “historic,” “orthodoxy” and “traditional” assumes history is on his side, as if “truth” historically ran on only one track and it happens to be the one he is on. Sorry Mr. DeYoung. I’m not sure Rob is absolutely correct but it is certain you are neither absolutely right nor orthodox.
- Therefore, his choice of the word “blaspheming” is silly if not stupid and typically ungenerous, arrogant even. Exactly what you would expect from someone with a toxic mindset.
“Blaspheme” doesn’t really apply anyway. We use it to characterize actions or words intended to impugn God’s name or affront His person. Bell might be attacking ideas but he clearly isn’t defying God. He believes the Bible and works from it not around it. However, in the heat of the moment, with so many egging him on, how could DeYoung resist.
The history DeYoung learned, which he assures us Bell got wrong, is an interpretation sanitized by the religious institutions of the American west, which not only trained him but continually monitor his acceptance.
Does anyone who knows how the system works think he can be entirely honest? Even publicly considering a different – not new – idea, would immediately trigger disbarment proceedings. His (their) interpretations of history and the Bible are “inspired” and therefore set. There is no room for discussion.
But, for me, here is the real issue. DeYoung is a dedicated “calvinist.” So dedicated in fact that his seminary peers referred to him as Calvin’s clone.
For those who may not be aware of it, calvinism – not the Bible – teaches that God preselected certain individuals to go to heaven while assigning everyone else to hell and these selections were made before the universe was created. In case you didn’t know, “calvinism” is slang for “reformed.” Read more
Tim Pepper - Beautiful Frustration