First off, let me direct you to Mark Galli’s wonderful essay at the Christianity Today web site, “Rob Bell Is Not A Litmus Test.” That’s how I’m defending myself.

In all seriousness, I ended up reading Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell cover-to-cover yesterday. I want to go back and read it again, perhaps taking more time to look up some of the Bible passages Bell mentioned. Galli’s essay begins by noting that people with whom he talks tend to be apologetic about the book: “Well, of course I don’t agree with everything he says, but ….” as if they’re fearful of being condemned just for liking it.

“Love Wins” is a controversial book. The controversy started before the book was even published – people accused Bell of heresy based solely on the promotional material for the book. When I first heard about that, I was furious. That kind of premature criticism just galls me. I wanted to read the book for myself and find out what all the hubbub was about. I looked for it at the local library a week or two ago, but it wasn’t there – and then, I decided to use part of an Amazon gift card given to me by my brother and sister-in-law to buy my own copy.

Well, like Galli’s apologetic friends, I’m not certain if I agree with everything Bell says either. But that’s not meant as apology. I can wholeheartedly recommend that you read this book, whether I’m in complete agreement with it or not. Bell raises some critically important questions and wanders into issues which some of us are more comfortable ignoring, and in doing so he does us all a great service.

There’s a great quote from C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” (in fact, I kept looking for Bell to reference it): “There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of ‘heaven’ ridiculous by saying that they do not want ‘to spend eternity playing harps.’ The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them.” (Perhaps Dr. Hawking should read “Mere Christianity.”)

My summary of Bell’s points is likely to be as shallow and misleading as the promotional material that got him into trouble. I include it only because I can’t get you to read the book unless I give you some idea what the book is about. Do not substitute my summary for the book itself. Read the book.

Bell starts by discussing heaven – not as a silly place where people sit around on clouds playing harps, but as the kingdom of God – both in our current plane of existence and in the future. His discussion is intelligent, insightful and hopeful.

But heaven’s not the controversial part. Bell then talks about hell – not as some sadistic place where God torments those who don’t agree with him, but as a state of separation from God, a separation chosen, in effect, by those who reside there. (Up to that point, he’s right in line with C.S. Lewis.) Like heaven, Bell says there can be a type of “hell” in the here and now, as well as the “hell” in the hereafter.

Now we start to wade into the tricky stuff. Bell lists every Bible passage which refers to Hell or its equivalent. He challenges some of the translations, such as a Hebrew word translated “forever” in many Bibles but which Bell said can also be used in other ways. (The word is used for Jonah being sent to the belly of the great fish, a situation which obviously wasn’t “forever” as we understand that English word.) Under that translation, Bell leaves open the possibility that some of those who find themselves separated from God may yet have the opportunity to reconcile with God, even after death. Bell stresses God’s love and God’s power in suggesting that God will find a way to “draw all people to [him]self,” as Jesus stated in John 12.

Bell also quotes Jesus’ statement that “no one comes to the Father except through me” and affirms that it’s absolutely true, but argues that it may be interpreted in ways broader and more compassionate than we Christians often try to interpret it. Jesus, says Bell, may bring people to the Father in ways that don’t necessarily involve four spiritual laws and a prayer read from a tract.

I have my own personal faith essay, which appears elsewhere at this site, and in it I state that I’m not a universalist. But Bell is accused of being a universalist when he implies, boldly, that God may choose to reconcile himself even to people from other faith traditions. There’s a lot of room for interpretation of this point as Bell makes it; I strongly suggest you read his words yourself and interpret them yourself.

Seriously, people, this is a critically important book. Whether you agree with any particular point or not, it will make you think about what you do believe in a way that I find profoundly helpful. And it’s beautifully written, readable and poignant, not some sort of jargon-filled study of theology.