Category Archives: Contemporary

Something has always concerned me about Rob Bell’s theology. Although many churches and youth groups swear by his popular series of NOOMA videos, Bell frequently seemed to offer his own theological opinions as dogmatic truth. Thus, when I first heard about “Love Wins” – Bell’s latest book, focusing on issues heaven and hell – I was skeptical. The excerpts offered did indeed seem to hint at universalism (the belief that all men will ultimately be reconciled to God), but I wanted to reserve judgment until I read the book for myself.

My initial impressions were correct. Bell’s book is a slickly packaged, postmodern synthesis of Christian truth and New Age sentimentalism, one that stays far beyond the pale of Christian orthodoxy. Through passionate emotional appeals (and blatant disregard for Scriptural context or historical scholarship) Bell offers up a dangerously seductive feel-good gospel.

The essential question the book attempts to answer is “why would a loving God create hell?” This is a question theologians throughout the centuries have wrestled with, but Bell outright ignores the centuries of past scholarship and discussion. It is clear from the start that Bell would prefer not to believe in hell; thus he relies on extraordinarily strained interpretations of Scripture to support his thesis.

Particularly striking is a passage in which Bell assesses the parable of the sheep and the goats (in which Jesus leads the sheep to everlasting life, and sends the goats away to everlasting punishment). Bell contends that the passage referring to “punishment” is simply mistranslated in most Bibles, and really should read “a time of pruning or correction.” I’m no Greek scholar, but I find it extraordinarily difficult to accept the notion that thousands of scholars have “mistranslated” the passage over the course of two millennia. (It’s worth noting that Bell never cites external authorities to justify his position).

Bell also presumes that all passages in which Jesus describes “coming judgment” are references to the destruction of Jerusalem. This conveniently sidesteps difficult verses like Matthew 10:28: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Now, I don’t believe God damns people to hell arbitrarily. I believe (as have many of the great minds of Christendom) that hell is the ultimate consequence of man’s rejection of God, rather than God’s rejection of man. Those who live and die in unrepentant sin face judgment. Bell’s gospel could, in theory, stand independently of Jesus: no mention is made of God’s righteous anger against sin and evil, which renders the atonement and resurrection ultimately superfluous. Bell believes in a God who is merciful, but not a God who is just. The mystery of how God could be both just and merciful has, through Christ, ultimately been revealed…but this view has no place in Bell’s heterodoxy.

Although he never explicitly says this, Bell implies that souls will have a “second chance” to repent after death. This openly disregards Hebrews 9:27: “…Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” Now, it’s fair to say that no one likes the idea of hell. It’s nasty and unpleasant to think about…and I’m willing to admit some uncertainty when it comes to this issue. I don’t know if people are confined in conscious or unconscious torment, if they’re being actively punished or simply forced to dwell in a condition of total separation from God …but I do know that as sinful human beings, we are only saved from hell through the blood of Jesus Christ.

The Bible offers us sufficient, but not exhaustive truth – we are told that Christ is the only way to salvation, and the Great Commission is our exhortation to spread the Word to others. I don’t know exactly what happens to souls who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel, which makes it all the more imperative that we as Christians take the Commission seriously. By presuming that all people – regardless of their beliefs – will eventually be reconciled to God, Bell renders the Commission toothless.

This review would be less harsh if Bell merely promoted universalism. But Bell takes his deviant theology one step further, offering up a dangerously subversive view of God that renders the book truly heretical.

Bell frequently casts “heaven” and “hell” in terms of our lives here on earth. This smacks strongly of New Age utopianism – the idea that once enough people get in touch with a sense of “cosmic love,” great things can happen. In keeping with this sentiment, Bell describes God as the “creative energy” that pervades all things, and goes on to state that “Obi-Wan called [this energy that is God] the Force.” This utterly depersonalizes God, reducing Him to a mystical cosmic presence that pervades all things, is infinitely benevolent, and will ultimately usher in a perfect utopian era. By rejecting the concept of a just and personal God who will ultimately hold the world accountable, Bell throws absolute truth and ethics to the wind. Ultimately, he embraces a pantheistic view of the Creator that deviates from Christian theology altogether.

This review isn’t meant to imply that there is nothing redemptive in “Love Wins.” Bell’s writing is powerful and poetic, and some of the points he makes are well taken. He calls for real action to help the downtrodden – a task that the church should indeed undertake. However, the theology that pervades the book is not merely universalist, but pantheist as well.

So why, then, is it so appealing to so many people?

Bell punctuates the book with heart-wrenching stories and anecdotes. Clearly, he has witnessed the pain and heartache of the world…but rather than eagerly anticipating a spiritual renewal and everlasting life, Bell offers up a decidedly unbiblical gospel. It may be “easier” and “happier” – but it undermines the ultimate reality of evil, and God’s holy nature. The world does hurt – and the Bible promises that God will ultimately judge evildoers through His righteousness.

Initial concerns about “Love Wins” were not unfounded. The gospel advanced by Bell is a serious departure from Christian theology. While it is a fascinating and compelling read, and useful for gaining a better understanding of cultural attitudes in the church today, it should not be treated as a source of truth. The message of the book drastically departs from a Scriptural understandings of eternity, and offers a disturbingly flawed concept of God Himself.

I pray that Rob Bell recognizes the dangers of what he has written, and adopts a more Biblically sound position in future works. A book as powerful and appealing as “Love Wins” will reach a broad audience, and I sincerely hope it doesn’t lead both Christians and unbelievers astray.

The makers of “Atlas Shrugged” are to be commended for their audacity. Adapting Ayn Rand’s massive, 1200-page economic epic into a feature film (or trilogy of films) is by no means an easy task. Not only is Rand’s work highly controversial – notably, she authored the philosophical treatise “The Virtue of Selfishness” – but it also contains heavy didactic elements that are difficult to translate onto celluloid. However, director Paul Johansson somehow manages to make his movie work. Capitalizing on Tea Party antigovernment angst, “Atlas Shrugged – Part I” serves as an engaging first chapter in what promises to be a strong adaptation.

In an age of economic unrest (2016), railroad company Taggart Transcontinental serves as a bastion of capitalist might. Guided by the firm hand of corporate executive Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling), the company somehow manages to stay profitable despite anti-capitalist sentiments among politicians. Meanwhile, fellow entrepreneur Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler) devises a super-powerful alloy (known as “Rearden Metal”) that promises to be stronger, lighter, and cheaper than traditional steel. An alliance soon forms between Dagny and Rearden – he supplies her with the resources for her railroad tracks, while benefiting financially from the arrangement.

This partnership is vehemently protested by many in Washington, who see the two executives as cold, heartless profit-mongers. A series of increasingly onerous government regulations threatens both Taggart Transcontinental and Rearden Steel. Even more disturbingly, many of the country’s leading businessmen and economic moguls have been disappearing. The question on everyone’s lips is, “Who is John Galt?” – ostensibly a nonsense phrase, but one that plays a key role in the development of the plot.

It sounds pretty dull, and if I hadn’t read the book, I would’ve been turned off by the first act of the film. A seemingly endless succession of corporate boardroom meetings drags down the plot – a flaw exacerbated by a somewhat deficient script. Rand’s magnum opus isn’t easy to make into a movie, and the filmmakers do the best they can. However, “Atlas Shrugged – Part I” manages to overcome these flaws, building to a truly powerful climax driven by strong characters.

Entering the movie, I was concerned by the high level of negative critical feedback (only 6% of critics gave the film a positive review). Most criticism revolves around the aforementioned issues…but these reviews fail to capture the true fire and passion that propels the story. “Atlas Shrugged” is, first and foremost, a story about humans fighting for principle. And while the first half of the movie feels fairly flat, the characters truly come into their own during the latter portion.

One of the greatest strengths of Rand’s writing – and an inevitable flaw in any adaptation – is her characterization of her protagonists. Dagny and Rearden are portrayed as strong, dispassionate, driven, and occasionally ruthless…characteristics which are very appealing in print, but much less so onscreen. Early on in the film, I found myself cringing at their cold, businesslike emotionlessness. Fortunately, they begin displaying more human emotions as the movie progresses, which vastly strengthens the film.

And “Atlas Shrugged – Part I” certainly has its outstanding moments. Although it frequently does feel like the low-budget indie film it is, the cinematography is frequently breathtaking. It captures the fierce intensity of Rand’s prose, while making the story more accessible to the public at large. In an age of widespread concern over government intervention in the free market, “Atlas Shrugged” just might serve as a valuable catalyst for effecting change.

Any discussion of “Atlas Shrugged” must necessarily take into account the underlying philosophy of Objectivism – a fiercely individualistic rejection of altruism, and a worldview that holds self-interest as its greatest value. There are definitely some nods to this throughout, but for the most part they feel like ham-handed additions. “Atlas Shrugged – Part I” is more a celebration of capitalism and individualism than anything else…although viewers can expect to see more Objectivism on display if Parts II and III are produced. Personally, having read the book, I found the film version to be remarkably tame in the philosophical sense.

Other objectionable content is found in the form of one sex scene between Dagny and Rearden (he’s already married to another woman). While it isn’t sustained or graphic (and easily skippable on DVD) it may give some viewers pause. Rand’s view of sexuality, while beyond the scope of this discussion, appears to reject traditional institutions such as marriage. This is, however, the only seriously problematic element of the film. There are a handful of swearwords (maybe 4 or 5 at most), but violence is a non-issue. (The movie carries a PG-13 rating “for a scene of sexual content.”)

So, should you see “Atlas Shrugged – Part I”?

If you’re a fan of the book, you won’t be disappointed. While there are a few missteps along the way (some key plot elements are cut, and the script is lackluster) the movie manages to capture the potent spirit of the novel. If you’ve never read “Atlas Shrugged,” you might be turned off by the slow first half…but the ending makes up for it. I watched the film with a friend who hadn’t read the book, and he said afterward, “I feel like a third eye just opened up…I see the world differently.”

And indeed, Rand’s work is brilliant, seductive, compelling, and subversive. I agree with some elements of her philosophy – individualism, ambition, personal integrity, and a willingness to persevere in spite of social pressures – but strongly disagree with her utter rejection of altruism and Christianity. Readers of her books (or viewers of the film) are advised to engage critically with her work. Objectivism (in all its forms) is an addictive, intoxicating worldview, and must be handled cautiously.

If you’re interested, go see this movie – but watch it with your eyes wide open.

VERDICT: 7.5/10
A strong, satisfying first adaptation of Ayn Rand’s epic novel.

Normalized Score: 4.6