"Love Wins" – A Catholic Review (Part 2 of 2)

Yesterday I featured the first part of my review of Rob Bell’s controversial book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

Part 1 can be found here, and Part 2 is below.


Though Bell doesn't cite sources in Love Wins, he clearly pulls from a couple of modern theologians. Bell’s treatment of heaven is almost identical to N.T. Wright’s in Surprised by Hope. Both theologians claim that heaven permeates our current world right now, that heaven is not just “somewhere out there,” a place we'll ascend to “someday."

Christians shouldn’t be escapists hoping to vacate this world but should usher and welcome heaven into the here and now. Heaven is ultimately a present reality we can choose and experience today. And if that's true of heaven, then it's true of hell as well.

Bell also turns to C.S. Lewis’ Great Divorce for his view of hell. Like Lewis, Bell surmises that God doesn’t force eternal suffering on anyone. Both men suggest that people enter hell through their own choices, and that it's personal desire that keeps them in. In other words, both men say, the door to hell is locked from the inside.

But if Bell recycles the views of N.T. Wright and C.S. Lewis, two heroes in most Evangelical circles, why has this book attracted so much hate? Some ascribe it to Bell's massive popularity, for envy always denigrates. Bell is phenomenally talented and he’s reached thousands of people in a time when most other pastors are struggling to retain their flocks.

While Lewis is dead and Wright is in England, Bell is thriving in the modern American context. His vast, local success may be why modern Evangelicals raise their pitchforks when Bell proposes an idea while they alternatively praise other heroes for suggesting similar things.

Beyond the Evangelical backlash, though, how does Love Wins square with the Catholic Church? Surprisingly, Bell’s outlook on heaven and hell comes fairly close to the Catholic understanding.

Bell agrees with the Church that hell is a real place. “Do I believe in a literal hell?" Bell asks, "Of course.” (p.64) Also in line with the Church, Bell proposes that hell is a choice—it's grasped, not forced. “God gives us what we want, and if that’s hell, we can have it.” (p.72)

In fact Bell even suggests the need for something close to purgatory:

“What we find Jesus teaching, over and over again, is that he’s interested in our hearts being transformed, so that we can actually handle heaven…How many of us could handle it, as we are today? How would we each do in a reality that had no capacity for cynicism or slander or worry or pride?” (p.50)

Love Wins also jives with Catholicism by arguing that Christ can save people in many different ways. In a long chapter on “justification”—how we are reconciled with God—Bell confronts the traditional Evangelical schemes which require the “right” prayer to be said in the “right” way to properly be saved.

He instead suggests, along with the Catholic Church (see Lumen Gentium, 16), that there is still hope for those who were never introduced to the way of Jesus or who never had the opportunity to be baptized before death. Church Tradition holds that while we know the sure path to salvation—baptism, repentance, reception of the Eucharist, and confession of mortal sin—God isn’t bound by his sacramental system. He certainly can save people outside these normal means (and we pray and hope he does!).

Here again C.S. Lewis’ influence on Bell is clear, as Lewis says something almost identical in God in the Dock. “Though all salvation is through Jesus," Lewis explains, "we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life."

In Love Wins, Bell also suggests the need to re-imagine the symbolism of Jesus’ death on the Cross. The sacrificial metaphor used to describe Jesus’ atonement “worked” for so many early Christians because they came out of a sacrificial religious culture.

But that’s not our environment, says Bell. With tongue firmly-in-cheek he asks “how often do you slit the throat of a goat?...Do you ever strangle a bird and then place it on an altar for good luck?”

Bell argues that we need a new metaphor today and he seems to favor the rescue analogy popularized by N.T. Wright. In this metaphor Jesus, the Great Hero, uses the Cross to rescue all of creation from the snares of darkness. It views the entire story of salvation through the lens of a subversive rescue mission.

While this narrative doesn’t counter the Catholic view, the Church still sees great value in the Jewish sacrificial metaphor since it points toward her sacramental foundation in a special way.

Despite these similarities, however, there are two major areas where Bell and Catholics diverge. First, Bell suggests that hell is not permanent, something the Church has explicitly denied. We have one life, says the Church, to choose our eternal destiny and there will be no second choice on the other side of death.

Second, though Bell doesn’t explicitly state this, he implies that when all is said and done, nobody will actually end up in hell. He suggests that hell is real, but that it will always be empty, a view known as “universalism.”

Though a number of saints have believed in universalism, it's not something the Catholic Church officially teaches. However, she has also never firmly declared whether anyone is actually in hell. Under that open umbrella, many brilliant, faithful scholars like Hans Urs von Balthasar and Fr. Robert Barron have suggested that while we don’t know or believe that everyone will be saved in the end, we can at least hold out “hope” that nobody will end up in hell (the Catechism says something like that, as well.)

One theologian put it this way: “I’m not a universalist, but I hope God is.”

In the end, while Love Wins has shaken the foundations of conservative Evangelicalism, it has much less friction with Catholicism. All Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, should approach Bell’s book with guarded curiosity—just as we approach any book. We should be, in the words of Jesus, "shrewd as serpents and simple as doves." With the proper spiritual maturation and discernment, though, almost anyone can find value in Bell's book.

I wouldn't recommend Love Wins as a trustworthy source on hell. But the book does offer a fresh, compelling, inspiring view of heaven and God's love. When read alongside the Catechism or other orthodox material, Bell's poetic exploration can reignite your excitement for the Good News of Jesus. And for that, I think it's worth at least a read.

(If you want a deeper understanding of the Catholic position on heaven and hell, there are plenty of good books, but none better than the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church. After that consider turning to Dante’s Divine Comedy for a more poetic look, or Fr. Martin von Cochem’s The Four Last Things for a theological explanation.)


BONUS MATERIAL
What do you think about heaven and hell?

If you've read Love Wins, what was your take?

 
  • Brent Stubbs

    The most charitable review of the book I've seen coming from an orthodox Christian. Good job.

    I have two contentions:

    1. Which saints believed in universalism?

    2. Which doctor of the church taught Fr. Barron/von Balthasar's position?

    I think, in this one instance, Fr. Barron might be showing his aesthetic penchant for von Balthasar and the popular appeal of such a position. I know it sounds charitable, but I think it is pollyannish and detrimental to evangelism to espouse it. Are we to believe the theologians or our Lady of Fatima?

  • Anonymous

    How's your C.S. Lewis reading plan coming?

  • Brandon Vogt

    Brent: Thanks for the compliments! Here's a few thoughts

    1. I've read a number of saints who seem to lean toward universalism (some more than others). The two that most stick out as patron saints of universalism are Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria, though I'll admit that both men weren't *clearly* universalists. They just seemed to believe that in the end, God's saving love will blanket all.

    2. I don't know of any doctors of the church who explicitly taught the Barron/Balthasar position, but then again--and here's the point I was trying to make--I don't think many of them explicitly deny it either. I believe most of the doctors would have felt more comfortable saying "we don't know" than "we definitely know" when it comes to the population of hell.

    3. I'm glad you brought up the visions of Fatima. I've been thinking a lot about that in light of "Love Wins", and a number of Catholics have pointed to these visions as proof that many will end up in hell.

    Having known absolutely nothing about Fatima, I decided to read up on it a month ago and have just about finished Fr. Aposotli's book titled "Fatima for Today". The text chronicles the life of each visionary and describes each of the visions, but it also includes some additional theological commentary from Cardinal Ratzinger.

    Ratzinger says something quite poignant. The Fatima visions, according to both him and JPII, were not so much visions of "what is", nor pictures of "what must be", but instead warnings of what *will* happen unless prayers and repentance change history.

    Seeing it that way, the children's vision of people being tormented in hell may point to what would happen *if* people aren't saved through prayers, conversion, and the mercy of God.

    That said, I still tend to believe that some people will end up--by choice--eternally separated from God (though I hope nobody will!) But I don't think the Fatima visions stand as a lock-tight case for a densely populated hell.

    Anonymous: Thanks for asking! The Lewis reading is moving along swimmingly. I was actually just working on my first Lewis review post today.

    So far I've read ~200 pages of his personal letters along with his first four books:

    - "Spirits In Bondage"
    - "The Pilgrim's Regress"
    - "Out of the Silent Planet"
    - "The Problem of Pain"

    Look for some short reviews soon.

  • Brandon Vogt

    Brent: By the way, here are some quotes I just found from the Church Fathers on universalism:

    http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/churchfathersquotes.htm

    As I mentioned, you have to stretch a number of the quotes to get to universalism, but the case could somewhat be made.

  • Brent Stubbs

    Brandon:

    1. Some of those quotes are about purgatory (the website isn't Catholic and is in fact a universalist website--be careful--I've been up close and personal to that heresy);

    2. St. Augustine (massa damnata) nor St. Chysostom believed in universalism;

    3. The Eastern Fathers are bound to be misunderstood;

    4. Lastly and most importantly, the Second Council of Constantinople (5th general council) dogmatically condemned the universalism of Origen--see #4. (this makes sense that one would see this thought in Clement of Alexandria since he taught Origen!)

    Some Church Father quotes about the eternality of hell can be found here. Here's one:

    St. Cyprian:
    An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

    It is true, that the Church has no list of damned, and so she will never infallibly say, exactly, who is there. But, she has and will always universally teach that some will be there. Sure, that doesn't bring us hope, but it should instill a healthy fear of the Lord.

    Thanks for the conversation,

    Brent

  • Brent Stubbs

    Brandon,

    On another topic, I can't wait to hear your thoughts on my very favorite book by C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. Wasn't that book painfully remarkable?

  • Randy

    Interesting post. Don't like to see you so enamored with this quasi-univeralism stuff. It is not just false. It is dangerous.

    Bell seems to beleive in purgatory rather than hell. A place where people do get cleansed from their sin and end up in heaven. So he is right about purgatory. He just calls it hell. So he is going to find support in scripture and tradition because they do talk about purgatory.

    Focus on the older thinkers. The modern fashion is to minimize hell. But go with what is old. What is modern often goes down and takes many souls with it.

  • Brandon Vogt

    Randy: Thanks for the comment! I'm not enamored with universalism. Yet I don't think I'm on the other extreme either.

    Right now I strongly believe many people will end up in hell, but I hope nobody does. And I'll do everything I can do make the latter happen.

    You're right that Bell seems to believe more in purgatory than in hell. I got that sense throughout the book.

    C.S. Lewis was precisely the same way. When you read "The Great Divorce" you're seeing souls transported form purgatory to a day trip in heaven. Hell doesn't seem to be in the picture.

    Finally, your final advice is well taken. Like I said, I tend to believe the traditional view, though I think some fathers, including Augustine, take it way to far by saying the huge majority of people will end up in hell.

    Brent Stubbs sent me this great article from "First Things" by Cardinal Avery Dulles on the population of hell. It looks at the Balthasar position, the Neauhas position, and the position of many of the fathers. Check it out:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23

  • Randy

    Thanks for taking that comment so well. I wondered if I was too hard on you. I had seen that article before. I noticed one quote in it:

    Karl Rahner, another representative of the more liberal trend, holds for the possibility that no one ever goes to hell. We have no clear revelation, he says, to the effect that some are actually lost. The discourses of Jesus on the subject appear to be admonitory rather than predictive. Their aim is to persuade his hearers to pursue the better and safer path by alerting them to the danger of eternal perdition.

    I actually agree with Rahner up to that point. Jesus does talk about hell purely as a persuader. He deliberately avoids making clear predictions about numbers. But the two are not unrelated. If we think most are saved we will tend to look around and see if we are better than the average chap and if we are we will assume our soul is safe.

    Rahner, von Balthazar, and Bell break with Jesus when they talk about numbers. Especially wen they raise the possibility of hell being empty. They do precisely what Jesus refused to do and it is unwise for them for precisely the same reason it was unwise for Jesus. Jesus does not want us calculating. He wants us pursuing holiness with everything we have.

  • Mary Saou

    Brandon, I am so glad for both parts of your review! I found Love Wins to be an interesting read, just as you said, and a great reminder of how we can bring heaven and hell to earth right now. Many mornings I will wake up and ask myself the question Bell poses at one point:
    "Am I bringing heaven to earth today?"
    His views on hell were also reminiscent of Tim Keller's book, The Prodigal God-- have you read it? My parents love that book.

    I may venture to disagree on one thought-- that Bell believes that hell will always be empty. At one point he states that we can choose hell, today and in the future. Different people could definitely infer different things from books, though. That's why we all have so many opinions about it, I guess!

    Great point about approaching all books with "guarded curiosity." May we let the Holy Spirit guide us in all that we read and learn!

  • Brandon Vogt

    Mary: You are too gracious! And thanks for linking to my review on Facebook.

    I haven't read "The Prodigal God" yet, though I have heard great things about it. I actually have a copy and have skimmed it but it obviously deserves a deeper read.

    Regarding your second point, I think my understanding of Bell's belief is not that "hell will always be empty", but that hell will *eventually* be empty.

    Bell infers that while we may be able to "choose hell" now, tomorrow, and even at the moment of our death, God's love will eventually lure us into heaven (a belief, by the way, that also requires hell to be a temporary destination.)

    He seems to think that people have endless chances to leave hell and enter heaven, even after their death, that God's love wears down even the most grievous of sinners so that, in the end, nobody can escape his loving grasp.

    Now, obviously, I disagree with him on most of those points. And I think the majority of Christendom does as well.

    But as I mentioned in my review, there are still plenty of riches in his book (excluding the material on hell.)

  • Trevor

    Great review Brandon. I liked how you honesty praised and criticized the book. In the early days of the book's release (and it's pre-release storm) much of the input from Christianity was lopsided in either direction. You treated the book fairly while honoring Rob as your brother in Christ. I really respect that. It speaks to your character.

    I completely agree with many of the other comments made that this is one of the best reviews of Love Wins I have read yet. Great job!

  • Brandon Vogt

    Trevor: Thanks for the kind words! And, by the way, I know you've discovered what Superman has been reading lately...

    http://www.thinveil.net/2011/07/supermans-favorite-book.html

  • "There is only one tragedy in the end, not to have been a saint." - Léon Bloy