Love Wins- A Look at Rob Bell’s Theology of Hell
So, everyone is up in arms about Rob Bell’s new book: Love Wins.
Robb Bell’s Universalism! Catholic bloggers are also up in arms!
If you’re out of the loop here’s why all the fuss.
Rob Bell’s nuances are seeming to imply that the much coveted salvation prayer of the Evangelical tradition isn’t the moment of salvation, neither are classes, seminars or other such participations.
HarperCollins’s description of Bell’s book, Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived is as follows:
Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners—with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.
What I see going on here is a strong movement of jumping to conclusions. Not unfounded ones, but conclusions that are nevertheless premature. One blogger out there has ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK in its entirety. Others, are quick to dismiss Rob Bell and his ministry as heretical. Now, as a Catholic, I’m not usually on Rob Bell’s side. We do not always agree. I do not think he’s always teaching the gospel. But what I see Rob Bell doing in what scant information is available on his book, unreleased as it is, is that he’s questioning traditional evangelicalism and mainline protestantism.
Rob Bell is living out the end of Evangelicalism, like a softer, kinder, more hipster Derrida, he’s found everything without foundation, and is looking to lay a new one. Or at the very least, undo the harmful byproducts of the old one.
An actual quote from the book is not far from the work of C.S. Lewis, the Catholic position, or a reasonable one found in most people willing to question the reformed tradition.
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.
Rob Bell is simply stating the old addage that hell is a door locked from the inside. But what’s more interesting is that the vision he’s drafted while dangerously close to universalism, is also dangerously close to orthodox theology, and that’s what bothers the Calvinists and the other protestant mainliners. Bell expresses a view that might just decentralize going to heaven, and might just work towards a fuller need for thinking about the Resurrection of the Body. That’s awesome, if it is in fact what he’s doing.
Love Wins.
Isn’t that the gospel message? That Jesus Christ enacted a sure victory for God? Isn’t that why we go to mass or church and celebrate? Is the victory of God really so foreign to us that we have to reject any celebration of God’s justice? Now, I’m not going to trumpet Bell’s praises, but I have to say, hats off.
The man took a risk, pissed off a lot of people and has brought a discussion of salvation into mainstream culture. Twitter exploded, Rob Bell was a trending topic, and the blogosphere erupted. This shows me a sign of hope. We live in a culture that wants more out of life and cares deeply about afterlife, despite the overestimations of atheists and some scholars about the widespread nihilism of our day.
The point of this book is in many ways a popular level version of the Theology of Hope by Jurgenn Moltmann, that eschatology isn’t something we should hide until people believe Jesus is the only way, and then spring on them that all their unbeliever friends are hell-bound. Nor is it an embarrassing end-note on Christian theology. Rather, the victory of God should flavor all aspects of our theology.
Lots of people are quoting Bell as saying that Hell is empty.
Now, if what Rob Bell means by “Hell is empty” is, that it is a place of non-existence because we’ve chosen to cut ourselves off from the one who allows us to exist, and hell isn’t a place but ceasing to have a place in God’s love, then that’s all well and good. That’s within the bounds of Orthodox doctrine on hell.
C.S. Lewis noted, “I have met no people who fully disbelieved in hell and also had a living and life-giving belief in heaven”. So, let’s be careful if Rob Bell is accidentally trying to strip our life-giving belief in heaven through shutting the gates of hell prematurely. I mean, N.T. Wright’s book Justification says many of the same things I hear this book saying. The quote above seems to be Bell’s landing pad in the end. That we can choose against grace, and in doing so we can have all the hell we want.
The Unhealthy Alternative
If by “Hell is empty” Bell means that everyone goes to heaven no matter what…we have a problem. If this is the case then, Christ is useless because God has massacred a man for no reason, or even solely for the reason of pouring out wrath on one so he could lassiez-faire the rest of us regardless of our actions. I don’t want to serve that God, and neither should you. This sort of cheap grace as Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call it, is exactly the thing I think the blogosphere might be mis-reading into Rob Bell. Now, I don’t think we have enough information to make a definitive decision on what Bell is really saying, but the quote from the book as provided above seems to make it clear that this is not Rob Bell’s point. I might be wrong, and trust me, I’d love to review the book when I can afford a copy, but by that time I’m sure we’ll all know what he thinks unless one of my well-connected readers has an advance copy they can get me.
I think Bell is simply pushing Evangelical culture to look at itself honestly and recognize it has very shoddy doctrine in issues of salvation nowadays. There’s no singular consensus among protestants except for the “salvation prayer” tradition of most evangelicals, and/or the infilling of the holy spirit experience of Charismatics. I think Bell has asked the right questions, even if in the end it turns out he hasn’t provided the right answers.
Conclusions:
Evangelical readers: This is not the end of the world. It may be the beginning of the end of Evangelicalism, but that’s not so bad. Bell has set the elephants in the room in plain sight. Take advantage of this to walk away different. You don’t necessarily need to change, but be open to it, and you might be surprised. Look deeply at your beliefs through this book, and ask the difficult questions. Does your theology of hell say that Love Wins? If not, it might be time to examine more orthodox theologies, and see what God really might be saying to you. After all, isn’t part of the fun of the faith journey seeking after God Himself?
Catholic readers of mine, the gospel is unchanged and the Church has taught this from the start: Love Wins. The entire book of the Revelation to St. John says as much, our world expects as much from us. We’ve been lost in an eschatology that’s been emabarassed to tell the Truth because of the enduring problem of suffering people, but the Truth is…God has won and continues to win through the person and work of Jesus, the sacrament of God.
In Christ, we all win; apart from Him, not so much. But I think Bell wouldn’t disagree with that. If he does, we have problems, but I don’t think that’s what’s being said. The jury is out, but I am withholding judgment until we know a bit more.
The important thing in the end that we can take away from this heated debate is that God’s grace is alive and well in the world of today, and calling us all to reflect more truly a love that wins.
39 responses to “Love Wins- A Look at Rob Bell’s Theology of Hell”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - July 30, 2011
The Practical Catholic 
I find a lot of merit in this entry. Coincidentally, I just yesterday added something about Rob Bell’s book to my own recent blog on the Orthodox view of salvation.
But I worry about the view of the atonement reflected in “If by ‘Hell is empty’ Bell means that everyone goes to heaven no matter what…we have a problem. If this is the case then, Christ is useless because .God has massacred a man for no reason, or even solely for the reason of pouring out wrath on one so he could lassiez-faire the rest of us regardless of our actions.” I don’t think that God [the Father] massacred Christ, and I believe I’m in the Orthodox mainstream (and probably the Catholic mainstream as well) in that.
Hey readerJohn, I am not sure I follow what your problem with the above quote is, but if you’d care to elaborate I would like to perhaps either clarify or correct what I’ve written. Let me know. 🙂
Eli: You apparently popped over to my blog and got your question answered. My problem is with “penal substitutionary atonement,” which I thought was implied particularly by “God has massacred a man” (His Son, I assume). Apparently, you didn’t intend to advance that view.
Ah, no. Not at all!
I agree with what you (seem to be) saying, but I think the bit about ‘Christ is useless’ is poorly phrased, at least. What I’m used to actual Universalists (not Unitarian Universalists, but Christians who believe everybody goes to heaven eventually) saying (and no, I’m not one) is that everyone is saved through Christ.
The big theological difference is generally that Universalists, unlike mainstream Christianity, believe you can still repent and choose God after death … so Hell becomes a sort of super-Purgatory.
What puzzles me in the first place is that Jews in Jesus’ time did not believe in hell, nor do they do so today. So when Jesus told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, or spoke of Gehenna, his listeners would not associate his words with “hell” as we perceive it.
I think the concept of hell came from the Gentile believers but had no basis in early Christian teachings.
Besides, St Paul said that the “wages of sin is death”, not hell. It is simply inconceivable or believable that hell is our natural destiny. Everlasting life is God’s gift. Refusing to accept that gift simply means that we remained condemned to what is natural to man – the grave.
I don’t have much contact with Evangelicals, and haven’t seen this mentioned in any other place i’ve been (though i’ve taken it easy on the blog reading this week), so I actually haven’t heard of this book.
I just wanted to ask, what is he sitting on in that picture? A castle?
“Ok everyone, just pull up a castle and i’ll break this down for you …”
Hahahaha. yeah, it’s a castle. He’s one of the biggest voices in the evangelical movement called The Emerging church.
Great comment! made my day!
It’s only a matter of time before he becomes Catholic. That’s my bet.
Excellent piece, Eli.
I’d be more encouraged if he were reading the Early Church Fathers, although this is a hopeful sign for those inclined to see the glass as “half full.”
Still, we must never underestimate the ability of us humans to overlook the obvious if our livelihoods depend on overlooking it. Rob Bell has been described as an Evangelical “rock star,” and he’s built a very large church. That’s a huge ego trip, and he could go off in some cultic direction rather than take a “do over,” becoming a mere layman in Catholicism (or Orthodoxy).
I see where you’re coming from, and the dangers you bring up are very real possibilities. However, I think we do better to hope and pray. He’s breaking out of the Evangelical mold, and what I’ve seen across the board is evangelicals reading the saints, the fathers and even Aquinas.
Is Rob Bell a rockstar? Maybe. I don’t think it’s on purpose. I think he’s a well marketed hipster.
I think we’re right to be cautious, but again, as Catholics we know that Rome is Home and all Truth can be found within her wellspring of Holy Spirit interactions, in the apostolic Tradition, the Fathers of the Church, and in the lives of the saints.
I think he’s in process, the way all evangelicals nowadays seem to be looking to the ancients for advice. He reads lots of maimonides and some of the fathers, but as of now remains unconvinced of our claims. However, I do think he’s opening a floodgate that will bring evangelicals home.
Some remain unconvinced, I pray for him often, he’s not stupid, he just needs more Catholic friends.
Perhaps he really needs a Secret Vatican Spy and a Practical Catholic in his life. 😉
Thanks Hallie!
I don’t know who this Rob Bell guy is, but I take my view on hell from Chesterton. The Church (he says) insists that every soul is “damnable” but refuses to declare that any soul in particular is or will be damned. This leaves open the possibility that hell is empty while leaving each of us to take concern for our own salvation. Hell isn’t a political tool to wield over our enemies, but a spiritual one for our own edification.
Also, before Catholics get too eager to declare Rob Bell is the next St. Augustine, we should acknowledge (as readerjohn says) that there is no incentive for someone in his shoes to take an orthodox stance – much less become Catholic or Orthodox. Essentially he would be telling people “my book only says what you could read in a thousand other books.” [this btw is what i think the married priest debate in this country is largely about – a people who want career options and a church that wants priesthood to be a vocation, not a career. there isn’t after all a per se problem with married priests, as the Orthodox have demonstrated] Maybe he’s a remarkable guy and would do that, but the incentive isn’t there. I say this because I think it’s important to let apostolic tradition frame the terms of these discussions, not the latest books and celebrities.
I don’t think that in the end Bell is disagreeing with Chesterton, Rob Bell is familiar with his works, as well as Lewis’. I do have to admit that the entire marketing campaign behind this book has seemed a bit gimmicky to me. The description, the title of the book, they’re intentionally provocative, just like Sex God, his book on sexuality and spirituality.
I agree no one should be eager to St. mr. Rob Bell. He’s still a committed evangelical, but I see his rejection of traditional evangelical formulas as an opportunity for hope.
I don’t think it’s something just around the corner, or that he’s preparing to make a good and full conversion, but I do think he’s Catholic-friendly in many ways that are refreshing coming from the evangelical camp. This is not to say he’s a voice we should be reading at length, or at least most of us.
I think some are called to engage evangelicals, and those should be aware enough to know how to talk about issues like this, but again that’s not everyone. You know I will always side with Apostolic tradition over Evangelicalism, but nevertheless, as a convert, I have hope for him.
I don’t know if this created a lot of buzz among Catholics, but Wheaton College has opened, with the help of an alum who’s now Orthodox (and her husband – both are M.D.s, as I recall) a Patristics Center, though perhaps not by that name.
I don’t claim the history chops to resolve issues between Catholic and Orthodox. I work with many Catholics in the pro-life cause. I just encourage Evangelicals to take the Nicene ecclesiology seriously, and tell them they’ve got two plausible candidates.
John, I see what you’re saying and I do much the same. I am sorry if this post is misleading towards my ultimate intentions. I wish that the churches, all of them would return either to the Orthodox or Catholic way of life.
I am hopeful for a reunification of East and West, and cannot wait to be blessed to see the day.
Protestant evangelicals condemn us Roman Catholics all the time. To them they are God’s judge and jury and throw everyone in hell that does not hoop and holler. I’ve had these exact types personally condemn me just for the fact of me being Catholic.
Nicene Creed tells what Catholics believe…
Rob, I agree. I hope to faithfully express that Creed in my daily life and actions. It’s ok. I think Rob Bell is facing the end of Evangelical soteriology and has found, as I have found, it makes no sense. imputed righteousness does nothing except remove us from the equation and eliminate collaboration with God as a divine mandate.
Anyways, thanks for the comment.
Wow…did I read that correctly? You DON’T WANT to worship a God that actually WILL eventually save every human being and NOT have anyone in ETERNAL TORMENT?? And no one else should want to worship such a God either?!?
Are you aware of what you are saying? You don’t want to worship a God who will not leave anyone consigned to eternal torment? Why not?
Why would you actually WANT to worship a thing that someone labels a “god” that would create/permit/allow/damn a human being to eternal misery/torment/torture? Why would you want to worship something like that instead? What if the ones “permitted” to endure eternal suffering were your own mother, dad, or kids?
I can’t believe what I just read. This is exactly the thing that is killing Christianity.
Bob, you misunderstand me, or so it seems. Any God who would murder an innocent man so the rest of us could do as we please is unjust. I refuse to serve an unjust God.
The problem with Bell et al’s style of universalism is that it propagates what Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace”. It’s a grace that demands nothing, accepts the sinner and his sins.
Of course it’s fun to entertain fancies, but the God presented to us in the bible is not a fictional character made to suit our whims and desires. It’s easy to make the gospel palatable, every culture has its hang-ups and tries to change Jesus to suit their needs, but, if we were mature about it, we’d see that that’s illogical. Just because gravity doesn’t make me smile, doesn’t mean I have the freedom to say it no longer applies. Same with death.
Also, you didn’t quite catch what I actually said about hell, and I would ask you to re-read the post.
I am not saying eternal torment is a favorable outcome, what I am saying is that Hell is a door locked from the inside, and whatever we choose, in the end God says to the proud, “thy will be done.”
Thanks for the comment, and no, I don’t believe I am killing Christianity. I can only say what has been said. God has spoken, and He has spoken through the life, death and resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth. Whatever hell is, it’s we who choose it. Even Jesus says as much.
Again, thanks for your thoughts, it’s nice to have a disagreement sometimes.
All I can say is that I am now convinced that the original manuscripts of the contents of the Bible never at any time promoted eternal damnation, eternal torment, eternal abandonment, or any of the sort. It has been corrupted, sometimes unintentionall, sometimes intentionally. And the truth is coming out.
Anyone who wants to worship something that will torment, abandon or condemn their own kind and caring, white haired mother, is in need of psychiatric help. Thankfully, I now understand that this is nothing that was in the original manuscripts, and not anything the Jews ever believed or promoted, and still don’t to this this day. AMEN. I’m glad to have found this out.
And one more thing…your theology leaves a lot to be desired. First of all nowhere is it found in your Bible (which I assume is your standard) that God says to any man “thy will be done”. In fact, it’s the opposite. God wills ALL men to be saved. Does God get what God wants? No?
Second, no, Jesus Christ NEVER mentioned hell even once. He was a Jew, and Jews were not waiting for anyone to save them from hell nor eternal condemnation because they never believed such nonsense and still don’t to this day. You actually think Jesus Christ (a Jew) taught eternal damnation in hell?!?
Third, the Jews OWN 2/3 of your Bible and they say that eternal damnation and hell is not in their writings and they do not accept it. How did it get into your version of the Bible when the people who 2/3 of it say it’s not there?
Finally, I might remind you, since you seem to think that the world being eventually reconciled and restored is somehow a FAILURE based on your theology of Jesus Christ…Is it finished or not? Did he accomplish what he came to do or not? Every time someone is dragged into this mythical hell forever, your Jesus Christ (and your God) are utter FAILURES.
A God that WILLS all to be saved…and who is CAPABLE of saving all… is a God that WILL get his way, by hook or by crook. Period. Hell is a bad myth that needs to be abolished, fortunately eventually it will be.
And to the man who said that he wished Bell was reading “early church fathers”. I will just say: How EARLY would you like him to read back to? Because the earliest Chrisitans believed and practised RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS AND ALL MEN. That’s the earliest. Quite awhile before the dark souls of people like Augustine and Virgil ever crept into the picture.
So, I assume that you want Bell to read the EARLIEST Christian fathers…not Augustine and his likes.
And in case you’re wondering…I’m Catholic…or should I say (ahem), heretic? Oh, and…eternal abandonment, eternal torture, eternal torment, or whatever other term you want to use to soften it up and improve “God’s” image…is not “justice” in any way, shape or form.
Any human on this planet who did what you claim a God is going to do or permit, would have the authoriities called and would be locked up. Torture is illegal, abandonment of your children is a crime, allowing your child to run out onto a highway and get hit by cars because you don’t want to interfere with the child’s free will, will get you jail time and your child put into foster care so a REAL parent can look after it. Yet, these are all things you seem to think a “God” is going to do…and is even PERMITTED to do. Quite sad.
I read an article recently that the pope wants priests to preach the “uncomfortable” part of the gospel. I’ll be blunt…this old fool doesn’t seem to realize that people aren’t going to be intimidated anymore…they’re not going to worship at gun point. The first time I ever hear the priest at the church I go to, deliver the “uncomfortable” gospel, I’m going to make an appointment to see him and remind him that most of his congregation have mothers, dads, grandmas and grandpas, and kids, who have died who are ENDURING that “uncomfortable” part of the gospel…maybe he’d like to preach on WHY they should worship anything that is or allowing their family to be in torment…and then I’m going to tell him to use his brain and think very carefully about it. And if her persists, that’s the last they will see of me, and I won’t be shy to tell people why either.
….I’m sounding very heretical today!
Bob,
You write that “torture is illegal”. What about torturing oneself, however? In no human law are we condemned for bruising or scarring our own bodies, but such is not the case with divine law. Essentially, That is Eli’s point. God never tortures us, but we do torture ourselves by rejecting His love–the only love that absolutely resists the torturous effects of sin. Now, the question you, Eli, Bell, and many others (myself included) have is whether God forces us and our sin apart postmortem. Like Eli (I think), I believe this can only go so far, though. For, it comes to a point when–out of love–God lets us choose what we love more, our tortured addictions or Him.
Ultimately, torture and hurt are not things which God is “permitted” to do, they are things which we are permitted to do to ourselves and others–things which God provides an escape from.
These comments are very strange. The hypothetical scolding of his priest, calling the pope an old fool, the sweeping claims about Jesus’ teaching that seem to miss some things (see e.g. Matt. 5:22; Luke 16:22ff, Luke 17:1 etc), broad statements about a complex Jewish faith which wasn’t the topic of the original post, and the vitriolic tone condemning all things uncomfortable. It kind of sounded like a cartoon villian making an evil soliloquy when I read it. I hope there’s some intellegence somewhere in there.
Bell has a history of sloppy scholarship. He starts with his own opinion and then via proof-texting and ignoring conflicting evidence he creatively creates a straw man to make his point. I witnessed him do this often over 10 years ago
Eli,
As a former evangelical protestant (now Catholic), I wish to thank you for this insightful review. I’ve noticed many of my protestant friends up in arms about Love Wins, and, instead of taking it as an opportunity to reflect on God’s love, they merely attack Bell. In light of this, I am glad to write that I posted your review on Facebook, and many of those same people have opened up to discussions which they would have completely turned away from before. In fact, some have even invited discourse about Rome–a topic which hardly ever comes up without some sort of criticism. Know, then, that your blog is changing the lives of Protestants and working in them to bring them home.
I am sorry for my delay in responding I have been without a computer. I apologize sincerely. In any casel this comment gladdens my heart and let’s me know I am laboring for the right cause. 🙂
Wait, catholics actually read their bibles now??
In actuality, the Catholic Church sponsored the compilation of the bible and gave them the authority that the rest of Christianity takes for granted.
Gosh! Long latency on this!
“The Catholic Church sponsored the compilation” is at best an odd way of expressing it.
The undivided Church defined the Canon. At that point, the Church was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. “Catholic” was not a denominational name.
The Orthodox do not take for granted that the Church came before the Bible – long before – and that nice as it is to have Scripture in the hands of everyone, it is not of the essence of the Church to do so, nor of the essence of healthy Christian life.
Well, I can grant you the term undivided but the Undivided Church was Catholic/Orthodox, the word Catholic was in use at this point. Kata-hole, according to the whole. I’m Catholic but love Orthodoxy as a whole, both the Orthodox Church, and Orthodoxy as a common word held between the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.
I’m with you, Eli. “Catholic” sometimes needs disambiguated, though, and you apparently were using it in a way I can totally endorse.
That’s the plan.
I am enjoying the original post (by Eli) and his subsequent posts as well as those of ReaderJohn particularly.
This is my first visit to this blog … having come as a result of interest in the Love Wins issue.
The quality of the Catholic and Orthodox ideas expressed on this issue have strengthened my respect and love of those branches of Christian faith. The well-worded statements against “cheap grace” are very well taken.
I am indeed not able to be a Catholic or an Orthodox member due to certain doctrinal differences, yet the life and truth which are in these commuites of faith (as exemplified here by these dear brothers) is heart-warming and I eagerly aspire to unity with much of the spirit of this. It is a shame to Protestants that some Protestants condemn people “just for being Catholic [or Orthodox]” as one comment above reported.
“The early church fathers” were mentioned. That is interesting. A good friend of mine recently got me interested in the writings of the early church fathers. (He also is of a non-Catholic/Orthodox position.) There is so much good in those writings.)
Now… I am curious what it is about the Love Wins book that makes you say that Rob Bell is getting closer to being Catholic/Orthodox in persuasion. I just am ignorant in this area. Can you fill me in on that a bit?
For the traditional Church, hell was an afterthought to the real message, which is that God, in Christ is redeeming and reconciling all things to himself. Don’t doubt that judgment is part of the doctrine of the early church fathers, but the pre-mediaeval doctrine usually puts judgment on the powers of injustice and those who perpetuate it, in the style of the biblical prophets.
I said in the original post “Bell expresses a view that might just decentralize going to heaven, and might just work towards a fuller need for thinking about the Resurrection of the Body”
The early Church was decidedly against an otherwordly heaven as some distant hope. The hope of the early Church as evidenced by the Fathers is that the resurrection of the body is the chief tenet of Christian eschatology. Bell seems to draw on this and make salvation part of the here and now, and that’s what I admire so much about this dangerous little book.
Thanks for reading, and for your questions. I’m honored that you’ve found so much good here.
Good analysis of the book Love Wins by Rob Bell. Rob Bell does ask good questions that Catholic theology has better answers for. Rob Bell reflects for me a contemporary cool way of understanding salvation that is inclusive and expansive reaching out to everyone like Christ did on the cross. Rob Bell obviously read Robert Capon, that insightful high church Anglican priest who sees salvation as something that is completely by grace. Salvation is not free as it cost God his only begotten son. It is a mystery that the Eucharist sacramentally presents as receivable and approachable. Christ our passover lamb mysteriously present in creation, in good and evil, in the church, in the apostles, in the Bishop, and in the Eucharist.