Bell, Rob - Love Wins

[Mike McVey]

Well, I downloaded the book and read it fairly quickly. I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I'm not responding to anyone/anything in particular.

If Bell is a universalist, he sure fooled me. Universalism is God forcing everyone to be saved. What Bell ponders is that God wants all the world to be saved and will do everything possible to see that happen, but will allow an individual to choose not to be saved. That last line is where I have seen many critics say that Bell is being dishonest. Those who honor a Wesleyan background, like many of us on this forum, have no issues with this. We believe that we choose. Bell having been raised in and educated through Reformed theology is heretical to those he grew up.

Bell, in my opinion, correctly states that what we say about the afterlife is mostly speculation. Scripture does not spend lots of time describing the afterlife and so Bell offers his views. Some I agree with, some I do not.

The only surprise of the book for me is that Bell is much more open to stating his beliefs than Brian McLaren. Bell unveils his beliefs about heaven and hell whereas McLaren teases his readers with his possible view while always seeming to have an escape hatch. Bell's understanding of heaven/hell is similar to C.S. Lewis, but described more clearly with Scripture and theology to back his claim.

My major complaints of the book is more with me than the book. The book did not challenge me or my beliefs, but part of that is because I have spent many, many hours studying the subjects of the book. For the most part, Bell coming from a Reformed background, came strikingly close to my own then conclusions back in 2006. If anything, Bell seems to confirm what I already pretty much believed. The only other complaint is that Bell's flair for hyperbole makes me feel like I'm almost reading fiction at times. I can definitely see how feathers could be riled.

All of that being said, for those who have not explored the issues will find Bell asking questions that will lead to answers not dissimilar to his own. Since I am of similar answers, I do not have an issue with this. Those who embrace more of a Reformed Christianity will probably have multiple issues. My personal opinion is that it is a very, very good book but one that would have helped me personally more five years ago than now.

[Hans Deventer]

Read the book today on my Kindle. Here are some initial thoughts

1. It is a Rob Bell book. In other words, it is written in a way that you can hear him speak. He is first and foremost a preacher, and a good one at that.

2. He's asking lots of questions, providing some answers, but never seems to be going for a systematic approach to heaven and hell. People may like that, or not. Myself, I do. I believe it does the most justice to the Scriptures. For instance, in speaking about the atonement, he writes:

The point, then, isn’t to narrow it to one particular metaphor, image, explanation, or mechanism. To elevate one over the others, to insist that there’s a “correct” or “right” one, is to miss the brilliant, creative work these first Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors. They were reading their world, looking for ways to communicate this epic event in ways their listeners could grasp. The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is.

3. If there is universalism in the book, I haven't found it. In fact, he clearly speaks against it: "God is love, and to refuse this love moves us away from it, in the other direction, and that will, by very definition, be an increasingly unloving, hellish reality." All the same, the door is open, because love puts an open door in front of us all:

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth. Not true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true. What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody. And then he leaves the door way, way open.

4. But the book isn't about universalism. I think his concern is this:

Because if something is wrong with your God, if your God is loving one second and cruel the next, if your God will punish people for all of eternity for sins committed in a few short years, no amount of clever marketing or compelling language or good music or great coffee will be able to disguise that one, true, glaring, untenable, unacceptable, awful reality."

As he writes elsewhere: "What we believe matters". And it does.

5. He resonates with what C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject:

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.

And THAT is how "love wins".

But that does mean:

.... in speaking of the expansive, extraordinary, infinite love of God there is always the danger of neglecting the very real consequences of God’s love, namely God’s desire and intention to see things become everything they were always intended to be. For this to unfold, God must say about a number of acts and to those who would continue to do them, “Not here you won’t.”

[Chris Easton]

“Some communities don’t permit open honest inquiry about the things that matter”

“Jesus responds to almost every question he’s asked with a question.”

“Much blood has been spilled in church splits, heresy trial, and raging debates over issues that are in the end, not that essential. Sometimes what we are witnessing is simply a massive exercise in missing the point.”

“Jesus frees us to call things for what they are”

“God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere.”

“often people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death.

“There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.”

“Hell is our refusal to trust god’s retelling of our story”

“To reject God’s grace to turn form God’s love, to resist God’s telling, will lead to misery. It is a form of punishment all its own.”

“God extends an invitation to us, and we are free to do with it as we please. Saying yes will take us in one direction; saying no will take us in another.”

“Jesus calls us to repent, to have our minds and hearts transformed so that we see everything differently. It will require death, a humbling, a leaving behind of the old mind,”

“There are realities to our choices, While we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again.”

“Whatever you’ve been told about the end-the end of your life, the end of time, the end of the world- Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here, now, today. Love is what God is, love is why Jesus came, and love is why he continues to come, year after year person to person. Love is why I have written this book”

“So when the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will ‘get into heaven’ that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club. The good news is better than that.”

My review of his book titled “Love Wins” is found in the bold words inside this last quote I end with… “Much blood has been spilled in church splits, heresy trial, and raging debates over issues that are in the end, not that essential. Sometimes what we are witnessing is simply a massive exercise in missing the point.”

As I read this book I felt like I was in the room with Rob Bell. He writes like he speaks. I recommend this book to all who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

“Some communities don’t permit open honest inquiry about the things that matter.”

May this never be true of our church!

[Susan Unger]

“often people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death."

“So when the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will ‘get into heaven’ that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club. The good news is better than that.”

We used to have an amen icon. Since we don't anymore I'll just say Preach it!

[Lucas Finch]

I finished Love Wins last night. I thought that it was a great read, but I did not encounter any "new" ideas. Much of what Bell proposes can be found, for example, in the many works of C.S. Lewis, including The Last Battle, The Great Divorce, and I think even in Mere Christianity. I share with you some of my favorite quotes that were sent to my facebook via my kindle as I read it:

Jesus and the prophets lived with an awareness that God has been looking for partners since the beginning, people who will take seriously their divine responsibility to care for the earth and each other in loving, sustainable ways.

Jesus teaches us to pursue the life of heaven now and also then, anticipating the day when earth and heaven are one.

Heaven for Jesus wasn’t just “someday”; it was a present reality. Jesus blurs the lines, inviting the rich man, and us, into the merging of heaven and earth, the future and present, here and now.

In their previous life, the rich man saw himself as better than Lazarus, and now, in hell, the rich man still sees himself as above Lazarus. It’s no wonder Abraham says there’s a chasm that can’t be crossed. The chasm is the rich man’s heart! It hasn’t changed, even in death and torment and agony.

There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.

Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.

The more we want nothing to do with all God is, the more distance and space are created. If we want nothing to do with love, we are given a reality free from love.

The point then, as it is now, is Jesus. The divine in flesh and blood. He’s where the life is.

The powers of death and destruction have been defeated on the most epic scale imaginable. Individuals are then invited to see their story in the context of a far larger story, one that includes all of creation.

Jesus, for these first Christians, was the ultimate exposing of what God has been up to all along.

Grace and generosity aren’t fair; that’s their very essence. The father sees the younger brother’s return as one more occasion to practice unfairness. The younger son doesn’t deserve a party—that’s the point of the party. That’s how things work in the father’s world. Profound unfairness.

Hell is our refusal to trust God’s retelling of our story.

God is love, and to refuse this love moves us away from it, in the other direction, and that will, by very definition, be an increasingly unloving, hellish reality.

So when the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will “get into heaven,” that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club. The good news is better than that.

Love frees us to embrace all of our history, the history in which all things are being made new.

May you experience this vast, expansive, infinite, indestructible love that has been yours all along. May you discover that this love is as wide as the sky and as small as the cracks in your heart no one else knows about. And may you know, deep in your bones, that loves wins.

[Bob Evans]

Living in the Grand Rapids area and experiencing the whole Rob Bell experience up close and persoal I had to buy the book and read it. I found it very enjoyable and thought provoking. And seeing as I have two post modern sons it gives me great hope for their future descipleship and churchmanship.

It took me a while to figure out his style. I plan to reread the book only this time I am going to read the last two pages of each chapter first since thats where we hear his resolution to the issues raised by his exploration of all the different view points. I fell into the trap several times of overreacting to his commentary about the viewpoints of others and not seeing the whole line of thought to the end.

I am thankful for all the post modern folks on naznet. Watching their dialouge develop helped me to hold on to the end of each chapter enjoy all the journey and reach a conclusion.

I do not think he is a universalist. I think he is a thinker who really sees the Devine in the discussion and is confortable enough in his own faith not to have to conclude and wrapp up everything in a nice neat package. Non of his process is bad or evil it's just really different. Perhaps that is the modernist in me experiencing post modern thinking.

[Gina Stevenson]

Somewhere else (?what thread??) someone mentioned how sometimes when one is prone to pushing people into thinking on their own [or trying to, at least], it's upsetting for some people while, for others, it's something they appreciate. That reminded me once again of one of my profs that I appreciated/remembered most of all ... once in a blue moon instead of lecturing the whole class period, he would make a few comments, ask a stimulating question or two, and then send us away way before the class time was over ... that was to give us the rest of the class period to "think on these things." And it really was amazing how he seemed to just be able to get one's brain so highly in gear that you would leave there cogitating on what he'd said for a long, long time. So, maybe -- liking to think (what's proverbially called) "outside the box" -- I would appreciate such a book, too, as it might get some dormant brain cells [living where I do tends towards this] stirred up again.

[Thomas Oord]

For what it's worth, here's my blog review of Love Wins:

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/b...ing_love_wins/

Tom

[Lucas Finch]

For what it's worth, here's my blog review of Love Wins:

http://thomasjayoord.com/index.php/b...ing_love_wins/

Tom

Thanks, Dr. Oord, for contributing to the conversation! I've been eagerly awaiting feedback from a Nazarene professor!

[Thomas Oord]

You're welcome, Lucas. And although I'm sure you didn't mean to imply this, let me say I don't speak for all Nazarene professors. But some would probably appreciate my perspective.

Tom

[Doug Ward]

With all of the attention, and the eagerness by many who did not read the book, to condemn it - I had to read it for myself. After reading the book - I have 3 major observations.

1. There is absolutely nothing heretical or antithetical to Christianity in this book, unless you are a committed Calvinist. I found the first part of the book to be a take-down of Calvinism. If you are a prominent leader in Grand Rapids, that is a problem. His Biblical observations, while brief, were fitting and proper. I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Oord's assessment.

2. I found it to be poorly written. This is not a criticism of content, I just find his style of writing unappealing. I would have like more description of his beliefs, instead of a rather scattered, questioning approach. But that is more about me than Ron Bell.

3. His thoughts about the afterlife were obviously very heavily influenced by N.T. Wright, especially the second book of his recent trilogy, entitled "Surprised by Hope." I think Rob Bell would lose a plagiarism suit in court. If anyone found Bell's thoughts compelling, and want a more complete presentation, pick up N.T. Wright's "Simply CHristian" and "Surprised by Hope." They are must reads, deep, and very readable.

[Benjamin Burch]

With all of the attention, and the eagerness by many who did not read the book, to condemn it - I had to read it for myself. After reading the book - I have 3 major observations.

1. There is absolutely nothing heretical or antithetical to Christianity in this book, unless you are a committed Calvinist. I found the first part of the book to be a take-down of Calvinism. If you are a prominent leader in Grand Rapids, that is a problem. His Biblical observations, while brief, were fitting and proper. I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Oord's assessment.

2. I found it to be poorly written. This is not a criticism of content, I just find his style of writing unappealing. I would have like more description of his beliefs, instead of a rather scattered, questioning approach. But that is more about me than Ron Bell.

3. His thoughts about the afterlife were obviously very heavily influenced by N.T. Wright, especially the second book of his recent trilogy, entitled "Surprised by Hope." I think Rob Bell would lose a plagiarism suit in court. If anyone found Bell's thoughts compelling, and want a more complete presentation, pick up N.T. Wright's "Simply CHristian" and "Surprised by Hope." They are must reads, deep, and very readable.

We should note that (if my memory serves me well) Bell takes Wright's views where Wright would not. Bell is far more enthusiastic and hopeful of post-mortem repentance than I can recall Wrigt ever being, if he even hinted at the possibility.

[Ryan Scott]

We should note that (if my memory serves me well) Bell takes Wright's views where Wright would not. Bell is far more enthusiastic and hopeful of post-mortem repentance than I can recall Wrigt ever being, if he even hinted at the possibility.

I don't recall Wright mentioning that at all - other than to say he expects God to be more gracious than we can imagine.

[Benjamin Burch]

I don't recall Wright mentioning that at all - other than to say he expects God to be more gracious than we can imagine.

That is my memory as well. Just wanted to be open to the possibility that I had forgotten.

[Doug Ward]

We should note that (if my memory serves me well) Bell takes Wright's views where Wright would not. Bell is far more enthusiastic and hopeful of post-mortem repentance than I can recall Wrigt ever being, if he even hinted at the possibility.

Well, Wright does entertain the idea of something after life, but not quite yet eternal - his phrase is "We believe not in life after death, but in life after life-after death." Plus my comments were more about Wright's views of what happen to the righteous. Not that we go to heaven, but that God's great restorative work is already breaking out, and will be fully revealed then. Bell's wording was so much from Wright that it felt copied.
Wright has also written about the potential result of the unrighteous, which he does not describe as eternal damnation, but an existence that becomes somewhat extra, or non human. This thread Bell explicitly picked up on. These were the genesis of my comments.

[Ryan Scott]

Finally got around to reading this book. I think it's good. Bell says some good things and he ends on a very high note. However, it seemed forced in a lot of places. The chapter on Hell was incredible - the best part of the book. In other chapters it seems like he was rushed and could have taken more time to develop his thoughts. There also seemed to be too many of his cutesy wordplay elements. In his other books they serve a purpose; in this one they're often extraneous.

That being said, this will expose a lot of people to ideas new to them, which have strong basis in scripture. I'd suggest (as Rob does in the back of the book" to check out NT Wright's "Surprised by Hope" for a better explanation of the heaven/hell/resurrection/new creation stuff. Wright is just as easy to read, even as he's more in depth.

An average book for me, but one I'd certainly have no problem recommending to people for whom it's a good fit.

[Scott Moseley]

VERY interesting MSNBC interview with Rob Bell regarding "Love Wins" . - I found this very interesting coming from a secular mainstream media outlet. I Have not read Bells book but I have read most of all the positive reviews here on NazNet.

Question: Were Martin Bashir's (the interveiwer) introductory statements an accurate reflection on Bells beliefs as communicated through the book?

Note: Bashir was tough on Bell and Bell Squirmed: Bell looked very uncomfortable as if wishing the interview would hurry up and end.

[Ryan Scott]

Martin Bashir's not exactly the most credible interviewer. He's made a reputation out of ambushing and badgering guests; he's also been accused to editing tricks to make his subjects say things they didn't say.

I didn't watch this clip or saying any of this went on in the Bell interview, but Bashir does have a reputation for kind of sketchy journalism.

[Scott Moseley]

i don't know much about Bashir except what i read on Wiki - he does describe himself (at least on wiki) as a committed Christian. Bashirs questions did sound as if could fit in more on Naznet than on msnbc which must have caught Rob Bell by surprise. if you have a minute Ryan please watch at least the first 1 minute of the interview and let me know what you think of Bashirs opening intro and if it is an accurate description of 'love wins' .

[Ryan Pugh]

Bashir asks Bell the same question three times in a row (Is it relevant or irrelevant how one responds to Christ in this lifetime?) and Bell gives the same exact answer every time (It is extremely important and relevant).

No, Bashir's opening comments do not accurately reflect Bell's words in Love Wins.

[Mike McVey]

i don't know much about Bashir except what i read on Wiki - he does describe himself (at least on wiki) as a committed Christian. Bashirs questions did sound as if could fit in more on Naznet than on msnbc which must have caught Rob Bell by surprise. if you have a minute Ryan please watch at least the first 1 minute of the interview and let me know what you think of Bashirs opening intro and if it is an accurate description of 'love wins' .

Bashir comes from a very Reformed tradition and that tradition has always had struggles with the issues that Bell brings up. Bashir did catch Bell by surprise, but the questions were lose-lose. Bell refused to answer the way that Bashir wanted him to answer. At one point in this same interview, Bashir asks Bell to answer his questions and to anyone paying attention, it was easily seen that Bell answered one question three times. Bashir just did not like his answer. Also, Bashir interrupts Bell several times in the "interview."

[Hans Deventer]

From 13:00 to 14:21 Peter Rollins talks about the reactions to Love Wins in this interview. Makes a lot of sense to me.

http://religionforlife.podomatic.com...12_54_16-07_00