Love Wins [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

First of all I want to say that I have greatly admired the preaching and books that Rob Bell has put out before "Love Wins". I will continue to recommend "Velvet Elvis" and "Sex God". He is a brilliant communicator of God's Word. I listen to his podcasts more than any other preacher.

The Good
I applaud Rob for taking a risk and writing about this extremely important, touchy, weighty, and often not talked about topic. It is a topic upon which Evangelicals are underdeveloped in their thinking. In writing about this topic publicly Rob gives us permission to talk more freely with each other about it.
The more thinking and study of this topic the more we will be careful in our sometimes overly simplistic views or verbal slams against others.

Bell writes, "I've written this book because the kind of faith Jesus invites us into doesn't skirt the big questions." Amen. Completely agree.

The Great
The book is favulous, compelling writing. Bell paints pictures, turns a phrase ("It's as if we're currently trying to play the piano with oven mitts"), illustrates, and illuminates the biblical text in a way few others can.

He clearly sets the gospel in its cosmic framework, not just its human salvation framework. Jesus came not only to save sinners, but to redeem the world--every atom. He articulates a gospel that transforms trees as well as people. This is a good thing and should stretch Evangelicals to understand what Colossians is getting at when it says, "This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven" (Colossians 1.23). "A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small." (p. 135) Agreed.

The Bad
"At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God." (p. 109) Well, if universalism has been at the "center" of Christianity since the very "first church" I guess it's strange that there's such controversy around this book! Come on Robby, this isn't intellectually honest writing. The whole reason this book is swirling in controversy is because universalism has not been at the center, it has not been a belief from the beginning, and the first Christians did not think hell was temporary. It's one thing to present different views and theologies, it is another to do so with revisionist history.

The Ugly
In Matthew 25, Jesus the judge separates the sheep from the goats and sends the goats to "eternal punishment". Only, this doesn't fit with Bell's theology so he simply translates the phrase differently. He says "eternal punishment" should be translated as "a period of pruning" or a "time of trimming"!

"The goats are sent, in the Greek language, to an aion of kolazo. Aion, we know, has several meanings. One is "age" or "period of time"; another refers to "intensity of experience". An aion of kolazo. Depending on how you translate aion and kolazo, then, the phrase can mean "a period of pruning" or "a time of trimming", or an intense experience of correction. In a good number of English translations of the Bible, the phrase "aion of kolazo" gets translated as "eternal punishment," which many read to mean "punishment forever," as in never going to end. But "forever" is not really a category the biblical writers used." (p. 91-92)

First of all, he doesn't even quote the Greek text correctly! He says the phrase is "Aion of kolazo". That's not how the Greek text reads! It reads, "Eis kolasin aionion." The Greek word "aionion" is a different word than "aion"! This is very misleading. I can barely believe that he wrote so erroneously. It's as if he wished so hard that there is no reference to eternal punishment in the Bible that he found a way for it to go away.

The actual word used in Matt 25.41, 46 is "aionion". Now, it is true that the root word of "aionion" is "aion". But, they are two separate words, with two different meanings. For Bell to go on and on about "aion" meaning "age" and not "eternity" is completely irrelevant since he is talking about the wrong word!

"In a good number of English translations of the Bible, the phrase gets translated as 'eternal punishment'". Understatement of the aion! NIV, NRSV, NASB, KJV, New Living Translation. How about Eugene Peterson's "The Message" since Peterson endorsed Bell's book? The Message reads "eternal doom". Bell is off his theological and exegetical rocker when trying to get this verse not to mean what it actually means: "eternal punishment".

But imagine for a moment that he's right. Let's imagine that this verse isn't about eternal punishment, but just an "age" of time. So, theoretically, after an "age" or two of time, the goats will be set free. However, the sheep are sent to "eternal life" in the same verse. It is the same word used for the sheep as it is for the goats: "aionion". If Bell is right then "eternal life" is temporary. It's the same word used in John 3.16 "everlasting life". So whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have temporary life? I don't think so.

Rob Bell is not a biblical scholar or a theologian. He has no credentials to write his own translation of the Bible. I pray that there is not a Rob Bell Study Bible complete with a "fresh" translation of the scriptures coming our way in the near future.

conclusion:
If Bell is interested in raising more than just questions and really wants a thorough re-evaluation of hell, it would be helpful if he would either publicly debate other public figures, or co-write a book of "various views" on heaven/hell that includes other, more qualified, theologians and biblical scholars to help us all get a better handle on the topic.

I am also surprised that he keeps saying that he is not a universalist when that is what this book is about. "Love Wins" is a declaration that God's love will melt all hearts eventually, and all will be saved (maybe not right away but given enough time). If you go to the mars hill website they defend that Bell is not a universalist as well, but under their "download a resources list" they list "The Inescapable Love of God" as a good resource to help the reader understand "Love Wins" better. But the book "The Inescapable Love of God" is a book arguing for universalism. So, which is it? It's a strange mixed message.

I am not a Rob Bell fanboy; however, I do have a generally positive opinion of the little exposure I've had to his ministry. When Love Wins was first being reviewed and its author was being held up in many quarters as satan's chief apostle my first instinct was ignore it. (There are only so many books one can read.) Finally, the clamor reached so close to home that I had to give in and read it for myself. I don't like to let third parties do my thinking for me.

The uproar is understandable. Bell has a habit of asking hard questions. He also has a tendency to not provide definitive answers to the hard questions he asks. And when those questions concern the issues of heaven and hell and the possibility of universal salvation...well, the sacrificial fat is clearly sizzling on the altar.

It is hard to pin down Bell's position and I am strangely OK with that. I suspect the reason is because these are some very complex questions and the Bible is somewhat lacking in absolute clarity. Where the Bible is lacking in absolute clarity we extrapolate dogma at our own risk. Honestly, when it comes to eternal things I think the Bible gives us the best picture we can possibly process from our finite frame of reference. Sometimes that picture seems confusing because things that seem exclusive of each other in this world can actually be essential to each other in the various dimensions of eternity. (What sense does it make in this world to die in order to live?)

Do heaven and hell exist? Of course they do, and Bell would be one of the first to assert their reality. He does have a little different take on what, and when, heaven and hell are but he certainly doesn't deny their existence. Far from making them smaller and less meaningful he actually makes them bigger and more meaningful. I think there is room for disagreement among true believers on this topic especially since none of us have ever really been to either place. I actually find Bell's concept of heaven to be challenging and somewhat more exciting than big mansions and streets of gold.

The real problem most Evangelical believers will have with this book concerns the question of universalism. Is everyone going to be saved? Can a person find redemption after this life? My inclination on both of these questions is to say, "No." However, "No" does give rise to some legitimately serious questions and both positions can be argued from scripture with some powerful verses backing up each camp.

At this point I feel compelled to point out that Bell's position on universalism is essentially identical to the one held by C. S. Lewis. Having read almost everything by Lewis my thoughts had already turned to The Great Divorce and The Last Battle as well as various quotes from his lectures. I was not at all surprised when Lewis was cited in the end notes. Both Bell and Lewis seem to essentially hold the position that God is going to save everyone He can. They both believe that a person can go to hell but they have to really want to go there. That assertion is not as strange as it may sound. Lewis' The Great Divorce is a fantastical story but it shines a big bright light on human nature.

Am I comfortable with the notion that if everyone is going to be saved, or can be saved after this life, then strenuous efforts need not be made to bring people to Christ in this life (and the sooner the better)? Not at all, and that is not what I hear Bell saying. Am I comfortable with allowing God the right to do what He wants however He wants and would I be thrilled if everyone did get in to heaven? You bet. Do I know exactly what God is going to do about all of this? No, but I trust Him.

This is a short book and Bell doesn't even try to tie up all the loose ends. (I would be quite interested in hearing his take on the "second death".) What he does do is open a conversation that the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived would be comfortable having. It is only in the Western (mostly North American) church and over the last two to three hundred years that these issues have been considered resolved and beyond discussion. Hopefully once the journalistic hype and reactionary hysteria have died down this little book can make a positive contribution to the advancement of God's kingdom. Frankly, after all the hate and vitriol in the current Evangelical dialogue I'm quite ready to see love win.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who love questions and those who love answers.

Question-lovers focus on the ambiguity and uncertainty of belief. Reality is bigger and more complex than our theories about it. Consequently, we must be humble in the face of mystery, knowing how much we do not know.

Answer-lovers focus on the clarity and certainty of belief. Reality may slip the grasp of theory at the margins, but theory has a firm grip on reality at the center. So, we must act courageously in the world on the basis of what we do know.

Rob Bell loves questions. His critics love answers. This difference between them--a difference that is both temperamental and methodological--illuminates the controversy surrounding Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

Bell asks, "Does God get what God wants?"--namely, "all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:4). He further asks, "Do we get what we want?" A "yes" answer to the first question makes you a universalist, that is, a person who believes that God both desires the salvation of all people and realizes that desire. A "yes" answer to the second question makes you a proponent of hell, that is, a person who believes that we can be separated from God for eternity.

A "yes" answer to both questions makes you Rob Bell, a hell-believing universalist.

If that description of Bell strikes you as an oxymoron, you are probably an answer-lover who longs for clarity and certainty. To you, belief in universalism and belief in hell form an incoherent set. Either/or but not both/and.

But Bell is a question-lover comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. God will get what God wants. And we will get what we want. Either way, love wins. "If we want hell, if we want heaven, they are ours. That's how love works. It can't be forced, manipulated, or coerced. It always leaves room for the other to decide. God says yes, we can have what we want, because love wins."

Read that quote again. If we want heaven, love wins. If we want hell...love wins there too?

In my opinion, Bell can make that statement only by redefining hell. The Christian tradition--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--defines hell as the sentence of eternal punishment rendered by God against the unrighteous. One of the source passages for this definition is Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats. In that passage, Jesus teaches that he himself will separate the righteous and the unrighteous and render judgment. "Then they [the unrighteous] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Bell thinks the tradition has misinterpreted Jesus' words in verse 46. There, Jesus contrasts two fates: kolasin ai'nion and z''n ai'nion. The standard English translation of these two phrases is "eternal punishment" and "eternal life," respectively, although the words everlasting and forever occasionally appear instead of eternal. According to Bell, the "word kolazo is a term from horticulture. It refers to the pruning and trimming of the branches of a plant so it can flourish." And ai'nion describes either "a period of time with a beginning and an end" or "a particular intensity of experience that transcends time" (emphasis in original). According to Bell, then "the phrase [kolasin ai'nion] can mean `a period of pruning' or `a time of trimming,' or an intense experience of correction."

If the tradition defines hell as eternal punishment, then Bell redefines it as temporal or particularly intense pruning. The former is ultimate and retributive. The latter is penultimate and remedial. What Bell says about the interplay of human sin and divine judgment in the Old Testament captures the gist of what he's saying about hell: "Failure, we see again and again, isn't final, judgment has a point, and consequences are for correction."

There are several problems with reasoning about hell in this way: First, Bell commits "the root fallacy" when he thinks the root-meaning of kolaz'/kolasin determines its meaning. In the New Testament, kolaz' and kolasin are translated as "punish" and "punishment" in the four instances where they are used (Acts 4:21, 2 Pet. 2:9; and Matt. 25:46, 1 John 4:18, respectively). The root-meaning in and of itself cannot determine whether that punishment is remedial (which is what Bell intends by "pruning" or "trimming") or retributive. Second, the word ai'nion must be translated the same way in both of its instances in Matthew 25:46. If hell is temporal, so is heaven. If hell is an intense experience that transcends time, so is heaven. Obviously, Bell desires to limit the duration of hell, but in doing so, he ends up limiting the duration of heaven at the same time. Third, the problem of citing the Old Testament interplay between human sin and divine judgment is that this interplay is corporate and historical. In other words, it applies to the nation (Israel) or city (Jerusalem), not every citizen or resident. And it applies to that corporate body's experience in this age, not necessarily in the age to come.

Bell doesn't draw a sharp distinction between this age and the age to come. He argues--correctly, forcefully, and with great insight--that they overlap in the present age. (He also argues--again, correctly, forcefully, and with great insight--that our eschatology should shape our ethics.) Theologians describe the overlap as inaugurated eschatology. In other words, through his death and resurrection, Jesus Christ inaugurates "the age to come" in the midst of "this age." In terms of heaven, this means that we can begin to experience "eternal life" right here and right now. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come," Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17: "The old has gone, the new is here!" But inaugurated eschatology also applies in terms of hell. Romans 1:18 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people." And 2:5 adds, "because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." According to these verses, right now, we begin to experience either "eternal life" and "new creation" or "wrath" and "judgment."

The New Testament teaches inaugurated eschatology, but it also teaches consummated eschatology. If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ inaugurates, his second coming consummates. Consider, again, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, which begins this way: "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him..." (Matt. 25:31). Or 1 Corinthians 15:51-52: "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed."
Or Revelation 19:11: "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war." In these passages, and in many others, Christ's return marks a definitive turning point in the relationship between God and his creatures. In the words of the Nicene Creed, "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead."

For Bell, there does not seem to be a definitive turning point, a crisis moment where destinies are finalized. Hell, especially, is temporal and remedial. How long one spends there depends on how long one resists God's love. "Hell is our refusal to trust God's retelling of our story." Bell draws attention to Revelation 21:25, which says of the New Jerusalem: "On no day will its gates ever be shut." Then he writes: "That's a small detail, and its' important we don't get too hung up on details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process. But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go." Bell sees this as an image of hope. Those who have chosen hell can choose heaven. Logically, though, the image contains a note of despair, for what stops a person who has chosen heaven from choosing hell? Absent the precipitating event of Christ's second coming and the final judgment, it seems to me that life as Rob Bell portrays it will always be an ongoing struggle between heaven and hell, with no guarantee of a final resolution.

And if that's the case, in what sense does love actually win?