Where’s the Love? : Is Rob Bell’s portrayal of the Gospel Good News for Anyone?

Rob Bell has ignited quite a firestorm with his latest book.  Most of the debate centers on his view of hell which is clearly a critical issue for discussion.  However, there is another aspect of this book which has been largely overlooked.  Many of Bell’s detractors claim he is attempting to redesign the Gospel to be more palatable to people in our current culture who find Christian beliefs unappealing.  If so, has he succeeded in telling a more attractive story?  Not in this reader’s opinion.  On close review, Bell’s story is not good news for anyone, regardless of whether or not they happen to be Christian. 

In Love Wins Bell seems to have three main objectives:

1.      To communicate that the “Good News Is Better than That”.  Bell states that certain predominant beliefs held and taught by many who identify themselves as Christian are erroneous, portray God’s character in a very bad light, encourage bad behavior by “Christians” and, as a result, are repellant to many people.  These beliefs fall in two main categories:

1. Who goes to Heaven?
2. What is the nature of hell?

2.      To invite people to join a conversation about these matters by creating an environment in which all questions and opinions are welcome while we wrestle with these issues together.

3.      Less expressly stated, but permeating throughout the book, is Bell’s attempt to encourage people to behave better toward each other, put in his words, to not “reject love.”

To support his positions, Bell uses an intriguing mixture of both Scripture and human logic.  While Bell raises some important issues, the book ultimately misses the mark on all three counts.  That’s the bad news.  But fortunately, for all of us, the good news is indeed better than what is commonly believed and also better than portrayed in this book.  Way better.  That said, let’s take a closer look.

WHO GOES TO HEAVEN

Bell begins laying the foundation for his hell discussion by taking issue with two prevailing views:  the beliefs that salvation is, obtained by grace alone and only available to a select, few Christians.

Bell is concerned that the doctrine of salvation by grace alone has become a tacit endorsement of bad behavior by Christians secure in the knowledge that they’re Heaven bound because they said “the prayer” at some point.  Bell cites numerous Bible verses which he implies point to a variety of paths to salvation.   One very interesting example he cites begins in Matthew 19:16 when a rich man asks Jesus “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Bell refers to verses 17-18 in which Jesus tells the man to keep certain of the Ten Commandments.  To which the man replies, that he has, all his life.  To me, this is a fairly astounding claim for any human being to make, made all the more so by Jesus raising the bar on some of these same commandments - effectively redefining adultery to lust and murder to hatred (Matt. 5).  So, was Jesus sincerely expecting the man to keep these commandments or was he communicating the impossibility of doing so? 

For his part, Bell does not comment on the absurdity of the man’s claim but observes, correctly, that Jesus left out the commandment about coveting your neighbor’s stuff, one that would likely be particularly convicting to a wealthy man.  Bell then quotes verse 21 as “Go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven”, he then relates the end of the story - the man does not comply with Jesus’ suggestion and walks away from Him.  Bell seems to be using this as an example of someone given the opportunity to gain entry to Heaven through performing a good work.  Curiously, Bell omits the second half of verse 21, in which Jesus states “Then come, follow me.”  So would giving away his wealth save the man or is that his biggest obstacle to following Jesus, which is what actually would save him?  I, along with many others, would argue the latter – especially in light of the impossibility of keeping the other commandments cited by Jesus.

 

Likewise, none of the other verses referenced by Bell are inconsistent with the notion of grace alone, manifested in good works.  Unfortunately, Bell remains silent on verses which both support the promise of grace while clearly explaining the non-severable link between that grace and the good works that should be its outcome.  Jesus commands us to love one another and says this is in fact how we’ll be identified as His followers (John 13:34, 35).  He also provides a clear guideline for our behavior “If you love me you’ll obey what I command” (John 14:15).  Our behavior is not our entrance to salvation but the absolute evidence that we have indeed received it.  While Jesus paid the price for our inability to perfectly live up to the standards of the law, the law remains as the code of conduct for which we must strive.  In short, Scripture definitively rebukes the “Christian” bad behavior with which Bell is concerned, without negating the fact that we are saved by grace alone.  

Bell’s other concern is the prevailing view that only a “select few” attain salvation.  He proposes here the notion that God does not need people to spread His word.  Most Christians would agree.  God invites us to join Him in His work but is in no way constrained by our limitations.   If He can communicate through a donkey to Paul, He can certainly speak directly to a pot smoker in his kitchen (an example from the book).  Bell correctly cites that the gospel will be proclaimed to all nations (Mark 13:10) – this in itself suggests that some will hear it through supernatural means.  Additionally, in Revelation 7:9, 10 John speaks of seeing a “multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” standing before the throne of God and praising Him.  Clearly a very great number of people will be receptive to this proclaimed gospel. 

While Bell subscribes to the belief that God can and does communicate supernaturally, he takes the anti-exclusivity point further by suggesting an alternative to the prevailing view of hell. 

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HELL?

Many of Bell’s detractors accuse him of focusing on God’s love while ignoring God’s justice.  I disagree with this criticism and in fact find that he demonstrates a keen sense of God’s justice.  It is on this specific ground that Bell takes exception to the common Christian concept of hell as eternal, conscious torment - it does not appear just.  I wholeheartedly agree.  Infinite conscious punishment for sins committed in a finite life does seem grossly out of proportion, especially when considering it doesn’t just apply to the murderers and rapists among us but also to law abiding, compassionate people who don’t happen to share our faith.   Further complicating matters, torture and torment, even for finite periods, are viewed as cruel and unusual – even for our worst criminals.  We don’t behave that way - it is not just, as defined by our society.  Does this disconnect repel non-believers?  Yes, often. Does it create profound ambivalence in Christ followers?  Yes, often - and when it doesn’t, it should.   

But, are God’s ways often beyond our comprehension?  Absolutely, there are many things in this world that we cannot fully grasp (1 Cor. 13:12).  Is it possible that in some parallel universe a punishment of this extreme nature can be logically reconciled with a loving and just God?  Anything is possible with God.  But is it likely?  Would God have designed an eternal system of reward and consequence, the reconciliation of which is totally beyond the comprehension ability of the people whose minds He Himself designed?  Not likely - not for this critical issue.

That’s the human logical, emotional argument.  More to the point, there’s very little scriptural support for this common view of hell – on this general point, Bell and I agree – but, to quote Mies van der Rohe, God is in the details.  Bell outlines an alternative view for which there is also little scriptural support plus a fair amount of logical disconnects. Bell’s scenario centers on the idea that human death may not be the deadline for making a decision that leads to salvation.  He suggests that redemption can happen after death and cites several scripture verses he believes support this notion. 

These verses fall into two general categories, the first is the premise that hell can be redemptive.  To support this, Bell first cites verses regarding the restoration of cities and nations that have been either physically destroyed or significantly harmed on earth.  Bell then goes on to mention an excerpt from 1st Timothy regarding two men whom Paul wrote that he had “handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme”.  Unless Paul was ordering the execution of these men (which no one is suggesting), this is referring to corrective action during their human lifetime.  Clearly God uses trials in this life for corrective purposes.  However, none of these verses reference what happens to people post-mortem.  In using them as an illustration of redemption after death Bell makes an unsupportable leap. 

The second category contains verses referring to “all” people, nations or tongues.  Bell quotes 1 Timothy 2, “God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” and poses a leading question: “Does God get what God wants?”  This opening question, along with his inclusion of several verses regarding all people worshipping God, suggests that he may believe that in the end all are saved. But, in other sections of the book he insists that “love demands freedom…We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.”  Can the idea of all people being ultimately saved coexist with the notion of free will?  Bell implies that it can and that all people may ultimately make the choice to follow God because of the irresistible nature of His love.  Back to the fact that God designed us: if He designed us without the ability to resist His love, how is that free will?  It isn’t.

Is Bell Universalist?  He has denied this and the book is unclear.  But, if he isn’t Universalist, none of the verses referring to “all” support his argument, because “some” does not equal “all”.  On the other hand, if he is Universalist, his claim that “love demands freedom” doesn’t resonate.  Either way bottom line, he has a big logic problem.   

                                                 

He also supports the notion that hell is something people create for themselves on earth by rejecting love, and that to attain salvation people need to “choose love.”  Very little behavioral direction is offered beyond “choosing love.”  Additionally, Bell, in contrast to his earlier complaint about the bad behavior of self-identified “Christians”, expresses much concern for burned out Christians who seem too focused on works. 

The scenario Bell outlines to use his own phraseology, raises all sorts of interesting questions, some of which are:

1. As evidence of hell on earth, Bell refers to a number of people who have been victimized, including child amputees he saw in Rwanda.  If these children are experiencing hell on earth, is it a hell of their own creation?  Isn’t this akin to the type of thinking that justifies the cruelty of things like caste systems?  
2. Bell correctly states that all of us, he included, reject love from time to time.  The Bible says that most of us, including the “bad guys”, choose love from time to time (Matt. 5:46, 47).  How much is enough?  Is this left up to the discretion of the individual? 
3. If the mistaken notion regarding the sufficiency of “the prayer” encourages bad behavior by “Christians” how much more will bad behavior be practiced by those who believe they have infinite chances to repent, even beyond the bounds of this life?

Bell does not claim to have definitive answers, rather he offers up more questions regarding our situation post death:

“Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions-and the people who do them-from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?  Keeping the gates, in essence, open?  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little kingdom?  Will everyone be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?”    

This is not unexpected, given the overall tone of the book.  Far more surprising are his next statements:

“Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact.  We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.”

Really?  We can’t?  The answers to these questions are unavailable to us?  How does the idea of a loving God square with one who may or may not be telling us that we have a critical decision to make regarding our eternal fate and that a deadline may or may not exist for that decision?    

Alternative View Not Considered

Bell is silent on another doctrine.  Although it’s a minority view, the doctrine of Conditional Mortality is well established, has considerable scriptural support and addresses all of the challenges to the predominant view outlined by Bell in the preface.  In short, this view holds that those who do not choose salvation ultimately die.  Scripture repeatedly contrasts eternal life for the saved with perishing for the lost, beginning with John 3:16.  Additionally, Revelation refers to the second death after judgment for those not in the Book of Life (Rev. 20-21).  While the punishment (along with some other characteristics of hell) is referred to as eternal, this does not contradict annihilation which would indeed be a permanent, eternal separation from God.  There is little scriptural support, in this writer’s view, for the notion that people will have everlasting life in hell.  That is some of the scripture.  From a human logic perspective, this view addresses the major misconceptions regarding God that Bell targets in this book:  

1. God allows free will:  those who choose death are free to die.
2. God is merciful: while the punishment is eternal (death, separation from God) it is not conscious and not in outsize proportion to the crime.
3. God is just:  permanent death is a real consequence – and a terrifying prospect for many, especially when contrasted with eternal life in paradise.

Referencing this doctrine as an existing alternate belief held by some Christians would likely affect the force of Bell’s argument.  Could be that Bell does not agree with this view, but by omitting mention of an established doctrine that addresses all of his primary concerns, the book begins to look less like an attempt at open discussion and more like the promotion of a particular point of view.  Another objective missed.

SUMMARY

In his new book, Rob Bell demonstrates the best intentions.  Unfortunately the book falls short of his stated objectives.  Some of his critics accuse him of attempting to create a gospel that’s palatable for contemporary culture.  If that is indeed Bell’s motive, he’s missed the mark.  The “good” news presented in this book has implications that are not good at all – for anyone.  These are:

1. A god who is neither loving nor truthful enough to provide us with clear guidance on how to attain salvation.
2. A code of conduct left up to the judgment of individual, deeply flawed and naturally self-centered humans.
3. Human suffering that can readily be blamed on those that suffer.
4. Encouragement of bad behavior by those anticipating infinite chances to repent well beyond the bounds of their human life.
5. No free will if all go to heaven because God ultimately “gets what He wants”

Rob: Where’s the Love?

I believe the good news is far, far better.  It is both expansive and inclusive – and much clearer than portrayed in this book.  It includes:

1. A clear and singular path to salvation and eternal life through acceptance of God’s perfect Son Jesus as our Lord and Savior.
2. A merciful God who extends forgiveness and salvation to all who truly repent, regardless of their previous sins.
3. A loving God who communicates this message to all people either through human or supernatural means.
4. The salvation of multitudes who accept this message in this life, whether or not this acceptance is confirmed by other people.
5. A mandated, clear code of conduct that demonstrates love for others, gives us a better life now and definitively identifies us as children of God.
6. The free will to choose death over life along with the inevitable and just consequence of doing so.

That’s my King – and that is Good News.

Thanks for reading.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
 Jeremiah 29:11