A Fresh Perspective

Bell begins Chapter 4 by demonstrating the inconsistency of believing in a God of love and in a judgment of eternal torment. He contends that God wants all people to be saved and come to the truth, and then he asks the question, “Does God get what God wants?” He argues that the writers of Scripture consistently affirm that we’re all part of the same family and that what we have in common outweighs our differences. He compares God’s love to that of a parent for a child, “the kind of love that pursues, searches, creates, connects, and bonds. The kind of love that moves toward, embraces, and always works to be reconciled with, regardless of the cost” (p. 99). Bell then references several texts that reflect an inclusive, universal perspective. Bell writes, “This insistence that God will be united and reconciled with all people is a theme the writers and prophets return to again and again” (p. 100). This, of course, is true; there are a number of biblical passages that reflect a universal

In religious language “life” and “death” are poignant, theologically packed religious symbols. This is particularly apparent in the Gospel of John. In my book, A Faith Worth Living , I express it this way: “Death represents the absence of spiritual life. In a contemporary spiritual sense, it may be symbolic of the darkness of depression; or the enmity, estrangement, and alienation that separates individuals from one another and from their true selves; or a felt absence of love, meaning, and significance. Life, the antithesis of death, is what one experiences in relationship with God. In a contemporary existential sense, it may stand as a symbol for relationships and experiences that are healthy, vibrant, holistic, and transformative. Life involves freedom from the debilitating power of anxiety, worry, and fear. Life reflects the love, joy, and peace experienced by an individual or faith community when that person or community is delivered from the oppressive power of hate, guilt, a

Bell begins his discussion by noting that there is no “hell” in the Old Testament. There is a sheol —“a dark, mysterious, murky place people go when they die” (p. 65)—but nothing equivalent to hell. Beliefs about the afterlife in Hebrew culture were not “very articulated or defined” (p. 67). Bell notes that the word translated “hell” in the New Testament is actually gehenna , referring originally to an actual valley on the west side of Jerusalem used as a garbage dumb; a place where the fire was burning constantly to consume the trash. Bell emphasizes the metaphorical use of this word in the sayings of Jesus. The “volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors” that Jesus uses “describe the very real experiences and consequences of rejecting our God-given goodness and humanity” (p.73). I agree with Bell that Jesus employed the term in hyperbole and symbol. What Bell does not tell the reader, however, is that one metaphorical meaning of “hell” during the time of Jesus was tha

This is the first installment of my review of and reflection on the views articulated in Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins . My plan is to review one or two chapters in each blog entry over the next several weeks. This week I am discussing chapter 2, “Here Is the New There,” which is his discussion of heaven. Bell begins by calling into question “the fundamental story” of heaven that pervades evangelical Christianity, namely, that it is somewhere else, some other-worldly place. Bell points out that in the Gospels “eternal life” is more about quality of life than duration of life, and that it primarily relates to the kingdom of God that is both now and later, both present and future. Much of Bell’s discussion about heaven occurs around his exposition of a conversation Jesus has with a rich man who asks Jesus about what he must do to inherit eternal life (Matt 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). My intention here is not to critique Bell’s interpretation of all the angles and aspects of

When Rob Bell was interviewed by Martin Bashir of MSNBC, before Bashir asked about his book, Love Wins , he asked Bell to respond to the disaster in Japan. Bashir phrased the question this way, “Which do you believe: That God is all powerful, but doesn’t care about the people in Japan and their suffering, or that God cares about their suffering, but is not all powerful?” He framed the question as if these were the only two options. Bell responded by saying that he begins with the belief that when we shed a tear God sheds a tear, that God is a Divine Being who is profoundly empathetic, compassionate, and stands in solidarity with us. Of course, that didn’t fit Bashir’s binary, dualistic way of thinking, so he kept pressing him. Finally, Bell responded, “It’s a paradox at the heart of the Divine and it’s best left at that.” It was a horribly conducted interview that revealed more about Martin Bashir than it did Rob Bell. Bashir framed the questions in a way that required an either/or