“In Bell’s theology, God is love, a love that never burns hot with anger and a love that cannot distinguish or discriminate. “Jesus’ story,” Bell says, “is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us. It is a stunning, beautiful, expansive love and it is for everybody, everywhere” (vii). Therefore, he reasons, “we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he’s anybody else’s” (152). This is tragic. It’s as if Bell wants every earthly father to love every child in the world in the exact same way. If you rob a father of his unique, specific, not-for-everyone love, you rob the children of their greatest treasure. It reminds me of the T-shirt, “Jesus Loves You. Then Again He Loves Everybody.” There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to. The good news is that in love God sent his Son to live for our lives and die for our deaths, suffering the God-forsakenness we deserved so that we might call God our God and we who trust in Christ might be his children. The sad irony is that while Bell would very much like us to know the love of God, he has taken away the very thing in which God’s love is chiefly known: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10).” (16)
This is exactly the argument that Bell is writing against. You can take issue with his exegesis, you can take issue with his understanding of heaven and hell, and you can even take issue with how he portrays sin. All of that I understand and there is room to develop discussion around those issues. However, this argument, this belief, is incredible to me.
The above paragraph comes from Kevin DeYoung, out of East Lansing. He is writing an exhaustive critique of Love Wins from the perspective of “Evangelicals.” Kevin writes in his critique, that “Bell’s god is a small god, so bound by notions of radical free will that I wonder how Bell can be so confident God’s love will melt the hardest heart.” (17)
DeYoung says that “Bell’s god” is small.
“Bell’s god” is bound.
And yet here I am reading this critique and the point that really sticks for me, is what he says right before that, that God CAN NOT love everyone. God is INCAPABLE of loving everyone. God HAS NOT THE HEART to care for everyone.
He says that “There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to.”
That isn’t Good News?
That isn’t The Good News?
I guess I’m a little confused at this point. This is the part where DeYoung is ramping up to show how Bell’s view of the Cross and of God are perverted and weak.
And the message I get is that God CAN’T.
Not only is God INCAPABLE here, but the message seems to be that Christians SHOULD NOT share.
After all, if the message of salvation in Christ was spread to the entire world, and accepted by the entire world, then God would be INCAPABLE of loving all the Christians.
So the Good News of Christ is that we can horde our faith.
We can hide out from the world.
God’s love is ours.
Not theirs.
This is what is disheartening to me. When I hear Christians proclaim like a spoiled child that God is not available, even for all who would wish to receive God.
I recommend that you read both Bell’s book and the critique by DeYoung, because they both have good points within them. What I have written here is not an exhaustive critique of any writing.
I’m just pointing out where I see someone missing the point.
Here's a link to DeYoung's critique, courtesy of the GospelCoalition: Love Wins Review
