It's been a while since I've read Love Wins, but essentially, Bell is attempting to counterbalance the dominating Evangelical belief about what happens after we die.
Two of the overarching points that comprise the theme (I would say) are these:
Hell is just as much a reality now, as it is a reality of the future.
Love demands the freedom to choose.
Ultimately his conclusion is "we don't know for sure", and challenges those that pretend to, but also suggests that it's appropriate and "fitting" to hope that God may in the end save all of us. He provides some compelling arguments for why God's Love for us demands the freedom to choose either (as Bell puts it) Christ's version of the story for our lives, or our own. I think at one point he discusses the Orthodox perspective of hell being in the presence of God's love while rejecting said love, although I don't remember if he attributes it to Orthodoxy.
As far as the "hell as a present reality" point, he discusses the social aspects of "hell on earth" as evils that we can posture ourselves against in the present like human trafficking, hunger, exploitation, violence, et al.
I suggest taking my overview with a grain of salt both because it's been a while since I've read Love Wins, but also because I'm biased towards Rob Bell. He references Origen and Tertullian in it, though I know they were considered schismatics or heretics. I think he also references some of the saints too like Gregory of Nyssa.
Perhaps I'll try to take another brief pass through it and edit this ex post facto if there's anything worth adding or if I misrepresented it in any way.
I remember reading "Love Wins" sometime last year. Hearing a lot of hearsay about it from others who saw some of the commercials for it and already concluded that the man was a universalist when he didn't even say that much and seeing how others who read the book seemed to radically differ in opinion than many of the mainstream teachers/leaders denouncing it (i.e John Piper, Mark Driscoll, John McCarther, etc), I often got a bit frustrated with the civil wars. I remember when Christian leader John Piper famously tweeted Farewell Rob Bell, linking to a
blog post by Justin Taylor which suggests that Bells teachings on the subject are false doctrine"...and having others going so far as to get rid of everything Bell ever did prior to the book (including series they agreed with), I was thinking that there was WAY more overreaction than warranted.
So I went and bought the book to ensure that I wasn't slandering the man and to see what he was actually saying. Not surprisngly, there were many good things present and there were negatives present as well. Much of it wasn't nearly as bad as other Evangelicals made it out to be and a lot of it was actually directly in line with people many of those same evangelicals would champion (such as C.S Lewis, who made plain in one of his writings that Hell was locked from the inside/people were in Hell because they chose to be....and could leave if they truly repented). That many Evangelicals denouncing Bell kept SILENT on that one (probably because it'd lead to people seeing more inconsistency in their stances than they'd be comfortable with----and they already had A LOT of stances that were just as much an issue as with Bell, especially as it concerns Reformed Theology)...it shows they often didn't have a lot of valid points.
Many people accusing him came from the Reformed background and I always found it interesting to see them denounce him as a universalist who felt all were going to make it to heaven and yet their worldview supported a reverse form of universalism that said God's elect/chosen were predestined to make it in regardless of their actions...thus making it where they were upset at Bell for seemingly having a more expansive view of salvation where all get it regardless while they had a view more restrictive saying only some will get in regardless. It didn't line up to me and it's one of the reasons why I took what many critics said on the work with a grain of salt. Apart from the fact that they often seemed to slander him (even when his own website said differently from what they claimed since he believers there will be others in Hell just like in Heaven), they've often divorced themselves from anything regarding Ancient Christianity and that's enough of an issue whenever many critics were still making claims in their own theology as if al who didn't believe it were not "orthodox" even though what they espoused was developed many centuries after the early church and radically different from what was once considered Orthodox. In that regard, I was actually glad to see Bell challenge them on their own terms whenever they'd speak of church history...
It does not seem that Rob Bell teaches universalism (that every one will be saved) which can also be called apocatastasis (Origen's teaching, at least in his younger speculative days). Bell writes that people who refuse a vital connection with the
living God are given over to a kind of life [that] is less and less connected with God (
Love Wins, 66). And this is no mere theoretical state of affairs, because it is absolutely vital that we acknowledge that love, grace
and humanity can be rejected (my italics)and if so, God gives us what we want, and if thats hell, we can have it (72). Again, this more or less what C.S. Lewis wrote with a less provocative and perhaps less confusing approach.
There are a lot of other things that I disagree with Bell on, to be clear ( more shared
here,
here,
here and
here ). Although I appreciated his attempts at addressing certain scriptural realities often ignored within Evangelical circles or belittled, I did think he was a bit incomplete in his analysis. On p.g 107, he quoted Clement of Alexandria, Eusbesius, Gregory of Nyssa and Origen to establish the claim that what he advocated (universal reconcilliation) was not a new concept....and in that, I agree base on what I've studied in my own journey within Eastern Christianity. However, there were others besides them that often shared on the subject and it seemed like he would have made more of a difference if speaking on the ones who disagreed with the people he quoted on p.g 107 (as well as other places saints/other figures from antiquity were quoted). The ways that the book often seemed to raise more questions than answers bothered me since it didn't seem to often come out forcefully on many points as needed.
I did appreciate what he noted as it concerns Hell and Hell being present realities--something else many Evangelicals were bothered by as if it was a new thought even though others said the same thing. Dr.Martin Luther King, in example, often denoucned ministers preaching with a "pie in the sky" mentality with looking to the Lord and yet ignoring involvement as a Church with the issues harming others in the present. In
his words, "a minister cannot preach the glories of heaven while ignoring social conditions in his own community that cause men an earthly hell." King (who later became a Liberation Theologian due to his heart for addressing the physical realities of others in connection with the spiritual) and many others had the mindset that to be a believer/advocate of the Kingdom of God meant that we are to get involved showing what life in Heaven is about----and with that said, I did take a lot of issue with others saying Bell wasn't concerned with the kingdom of God even though his very history has been one of consistently proclaiming the Love of God/Christ, the problems with rejecting His rule and how we need to submit to the Lord.
What Bell seemed to be trying to address in the book was in connection to his heart of showing the love of God to all groups, including those who do not know of Him and have never been able to---and keeping things focused on how we're to live out our lives properly rather than simply think it's centered on espousing all of the correct doctrinal points verbally. Our faith as believers was always meant to be one where we were very much concerned with being of earthly good to others who are within our ability to impact for Him since the Lord did the same for us. Tabitha certainly had that mindset in
Acts 9:35-37 when she was always aiding the poor---and so did other apostles. Only in our times does it seem that being earthly good/working for the good of all men (even unbelievers, if it means working with them) is considered to be a problem somehow...but it wasn't always so, at least in the U.S. It seems that the concept centuries ago in the U.S was to be "earthly good" since there were many things off in the U.S that needed to be reformed in the 18th/19th centuries (i.e. child sweat shops/labor, slavery, prison reform, etc)---with physical action always being seen as a reflection of what spiritual reality one holds to and whether or not they're really "spiritually good/minded at all." John Wesley and William Wilberforce amongst others were key leaders in taking charge of things. Sadly, in
later times, people felt that focusing too much on the physical led to people missing the spiritual transformation of their souls---and so there was a strong Evangelical Revival that spread on preaching on the Kingdom of God...with much preaching on conversion being the focus......and in the process, all that matter was the intellectual side of things and talking of Christ rather than living it out/
Bell has the mindset that even the person who may not know as much as the most scholarly believer (or who even knows of Christ at all) would be approved of the Lord if they were seeking to walk in justice/show concern as Christ noted in Luke 10:25-39 with the Good Samaritan and Matthew 25 with those who did righteousness via feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting others in prison and showing real concern. It's why he referenced his respect for Ghandi near the beginning of the book and wondered how it was that people automatically assumed that he/many others are automatically in Hell because of how they didn't respect the "Christianity" of their day that was more intellectual/verbal than practical or consistent with Christ (in line with what Ghandi noted in saying "I respect your Christ, not your Christians" when speaking of all the abuses done by many in India in the name of Christ).
Bell's work feeding widows/orphans and many others in works of charity are proof, IMHO, of his devotion to the Lord per James 1 which notes how "pure and spotless religion before God is to look after widows/orphans and keep yourself from being polluted by the world." Where I think Bell was off is that it can be problematic claiming that all people in Hell are there based on choice alone and can choose to leave in the spiritual reality just like they can in the earthly one. For me, part of me was wondering "Does that not work in reverse as well? For if people are free to leave Hell to go to HEAVEN, would that also mean that the saints in Heaven would also be free to leave Heaven in order to go to Hell?"....and that would bring up an entirely different realm/set of issues that would need to be addressed if there is to be consistency. All of that said, Bell may be incomplete at many points...and I would dare say, "over the rainbow"/out there on other issues.....but I think much of what he said needs to be considered.
As another said best:
If we hold any respect for scripture, we are going to have to account for Gods judgment and wrath and, yes, the Biblical texts that refer to hell. In other words, the hell block may not fit well at the foundation of our faith, but when we eventually rebuild the tower its going to have to fit into it somewhere.
While the traditional side is frightened that no new worldview can emerge once we pull the block, the opposite side of the debate may underestimate how difficult its going to be to put together a new tower. We need to approach the subject with sobriety, and respect for the prior generations who handed this perspective to our own.
To summarize, then, here is what I think is at stake: We arent just arguing over a few minor points of doctrine, we are arguing over a key component which is central (even essential) to the faith of a large number of Christians. A great number of things depend on how we answer the hell question.
If interested, there was a good review on the issue which I found at the following. I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of it, but it definately gave a lot of food for thought:
Love Wins - An Orthodox View
