Rob Bell's Love Wins

I finally finished reading Rob Bell's book Love Wins.  The short review is that Bell asks a lot of questions but never provides a satisfactory answer for them.  He seems to want to make everyone happy, and in the end, satisfies no one.

Bell's analysis is at times questionable.  For example, on page 47, he relates the story of John & James' mother requesting they be seated at Jesus' right and left.  Bell's analysis is "she doesn't want bigger mansions or larger piles of gold for them."  But rather, "she understood heaven to be about partnering with God to make a new and better world, one with increasingly complex and expansive expressions and dimensions of shalom, creativity, beauty and design."  Huh?    It seems to me that she was asking that they be rewarded with power, which then caused the other disciples to become indignant at her bold request.

Bell consistently refers to the Creation story as a poem.  It is hard to determine whether he does this to avoid the word "story" or if he is minimizing the truth found within the Creation story.  He also appears to subscribe to the idea that the writer of Revelation is not John the Beloved Disciple, but rather a pastor (small "P").  Not big issues, but may demonstrate how loose and fast he is with the rest of scripture.

Later in the book, Bell draws on church fathers to support his idea that God will reconcile with all people.  However, his citations leave much to be desired.  First, he never directly pinpoints were this support can be found within the church father's work.  Second, he fails to reveal that Origen was nearly excommunicated by the early church and the church councils for his views.  The other church fathers he cites are, by Bell's brief quotes, not affirming the idea of universalism, as he is inferring.

Bell harps upon God's love, but rarely mentions God's holiness.  To me, these are balanced concerns, to Bell, holiness is a long lost cousin no one invites to the party.  Bell harps on the idea that if God consigns some to hell, then God is cruel, vicious and mean, not loving.  Why is it mean to give someone exactly what they wanted?

Bell asserts that Jesus is found everywhere, declaring that Paul finds Jesus everywhere (p 144).  This seems very close to pantheism to me.  Because Jesus is everywhere, "he is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe." (p 155).  He seems to be arguing that Jesus is both exclusive and inclusive, and that the door of heaven is wide open to everyone, regardless what you believe.  In the extreme, the eucharist unites everyone, apparently including those who never partake of it.

Bell asks many questions, but never addresses the other hard ones - if everyone is saved, then will the person who murdered my loved one be in heaven? What about Hitler?  What about that ex who cheated on you?  What about the killers of missionaries?  Even if none of them ever felt remorse in this life, they still get into heaven?

Reading Bell's book quenches the fire of evangelism and sucks meaning out of the Christian faith.  Why bother trying to convert anyone to following Christ when God will allow them multiple chances until they say "yes" to him?  Jesus' death was a solution for everyone, but Bell never explains why God gave us free choice, the choice to sin, to begin with?  Isn't God cruel to put us through this life filled with sin, poverty, sickness, and sadness if He could have stopped it at the Garden of Eden?  If God gets what God wants, then our choices do not matter.  So why bother with this pathway?