What do you think?
Rate this book
God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins
Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, has generated a national conversation about ultimate issues, such as the nature of hell, heaven, and the ultimate destiny of humankind. Yet, the book has also created unnecessary confusion. God Wins is a response to the provocative questions Love Wins has raised. In God Wins, Mark Galli explores the important questions that are left unasked and the issues left uncharted. Mark shows how Love Wins is not enough—and that there is even better news for our world. Includes a group-discussion guide with relevant Scripture passages.
152 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 16, 2011
9 people are currently reading
179 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
October 12, 2011
This review first appeared on my blog, Jacob's Café (jacobscafe.blogspot.com).
Part 1 of the Review:
I'm currently listening to the audiobook version of Mark Galli's God Wins, a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. I started writing some responses while I'm listening to it, so I don't forget them all. I wrote so much in response to just the preface, I thought I would post this first, especially since the preface wasn't Galli's work at all and so should be somewhat separated from his review.
Randy Alcorn wrote the preface to Galli's book, and it actually sets a quite negative tone. One of the things I appreciated about Galli was that he stated he is not criticizing Rob Bell or what Bell believes, but simply what the book, Love Wins, says. I think this is a fair attempt at taking the personal attack feel out of a discussion. Unfortunately, Alcorn's writing seems to take jabs at Bell along the lines of what DeYoung, Piper, and others have done.
Like many of the neo-Calvinists, Alcorn emphasizes the role of justice in Christ's sacrifice. He (and Galli) at times, present love and justice as mutually exclusive. However, Galli does properly state that this depends on how one defines love. I would add that it also depends on how one defines justice. Yes, love without guidance is not all that loving.
However, Galli, Alcorn, and many people seem to equate justice with punishment. Just like love without consequences is a very anthropocentric idea, so is punishment-focused justice. Our emphasis on fairness and forensic-like exactitude is not necessarily theocentric. In fact, it flies in the face of most of God's most explicit commands about justice (Jubilee, anyone?). What if forgiveness- and grace-centered love is the true definition of justice?
While Galli doesn't really use this perspective explicitly, Alcorn argues that Bell and others forsake the straightforward meaning of Scripture. Personally, this argument is something that drives me nuts. There is no such thing as a straightforward meaning, particularly of the Bible. Everything takes interpretation, especially when it was written thousands of years ago. Even something contemporary, being read within the culture it was intended for, takes interpretation. Love Wins is a perfect example. Galli says Bell's book says some things that I simply do not see in it. We have interpreted it differently. And Bell is one of the more straightforward authors out there. If something like this takes interpretation, there's really no legitimacy in reading the Bible from a "straightforward meaning" perspective.
Alcorn also criticizes Bell's book for disregarding historical church doctrine. This argument itself is controversial, as there is substantial evidence that a wideness of God's grace has been held by many influential Christians over the centuries. But yes, official doctrine has been rather narrow. The thing I find ironic about this is that it is Protestants, often those who who hold the label of "Reformed," who emphasize this argument. The Catholic Church used this exact same argument against Luther and other Reformers. As Galli says, newer isn't always better. Older and traditional isn't always better, either.
As humans, we are fallible. That means our theology is fallible. I hope our theology improves over the centuries. The theology of the Hebrews and Israelites certainly did. That doesn't make latter people better, but they did learn from their ancestors. We need to be wise about our theology. That means giving serious weight to the thought that came before us. But it also means taking a critical look at it.
Galli is much fairer in his part of the book, and Alcorn states how open-minded and fair Galli has always been. This is one of the things I have appreciated about his writing over the years. However, thus far into the book, it would have been much better without the preface.
Part 2 of the Review:
The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Part 1 of the Review:
I'm currently listening to the audiobook version of Mark Galli's God Wins, a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. I started writing some responses while I'm listening to it, so I don't forget them all. I wrote so much in response to just the preface, I thought I would post this first, especially since the preface wasn't Galli's work at all and so should be somewhat separated from his review.
Randy Alcorn wrote the preface to Galli's book, and it actually sets a quite negative tone. One of the things I appreciated about Galli was that he stated he is not criticizing Rob Bell or what Bell believes, but simply what the book, Love Wins, says. I think this is a fair attempt at taking the personal attack feel out of a discussion. Unfortunately, Alcorn's writing seems to take jabs at Bell along the lines of what DeYoung, Piper, and others have done.
Like many of the neo-Calvinists, Alcorn emphasizes the role of justice in Christ's sacrifice. He (and Galli) at times, present love and justice as mutually exclusive. However, Galli does properly state that this depends on how one defines love. I would add that it also depends on how one defines justice. Yes, love without guidance is not all that loving.
However, Galli, Alcorn, and many people seem to equate justice with punishment. Just like love without consequences is a very anthropocentric idea, so is punishment-focused justice. Our emphasis on fairness and forensic-like exactitude is not necessarily theocentric. In fact, it flies in the face of most of God's most explicit commands about justice (Jubilee, anyone?). What if forgiveness- and grace-centered love is the true definition of justice?
While Galli doesn't really use this perspective explicitly, Alcorn argues that Bell and others forsake the straightforward meaning of Scripture. Personally, this argument is something that drives me nuts. There is no such thing as a straightforward meaning, particularly of the Bible. Everything takes interpretation, especially when it was written thousands of years ago. Even something contemporary, being read within the culture it was intended for, takes interpretation. Love Wins is a perfect example. Galli says Bell's book says some things that I simply do not see in it. We have interpreted it differently. And Bell is one of the more straightforward authors out there. If something like this takes interpretation, there's really no legitimacy in reading the Bible from a "straightforward meaning" perspective.
Alcorn also criticizes Bell's book for disregarding historical church doctrine. This argument itself is controversial, as there is substantial evidence that a wideness of God's grace has been held by many influential Christians over the centuries. But yes, official doctrine has been rather narrow. The thing I find ironic about this is that it is Protestants, often those who who hold the label of "Reformed," who emphasize this argument. The Catholic Church used this exact same argument against Luther and other Reformers. As Galli says, newer isn't always better. Older and traditional isn't always better, either.
As humans, we are fallible. That means our theology is fallible. I hope our theology improves over the centuries. The theology of the Hebrews and Israelites certainly did. That doesn't make latter people better, but they did learn from their ancestors. We need to be wise about our theology. That means giving serious weight to the thought that came before us. But it also means taking a critical look at it.
Galli is much fairer in his part of the book, and Alcorn states how open-minded and fair Galli has always been. This is one of the things I have appreciated about his writing over the years. However, thus far into the book, it would have been much better without the preface.
Part 2 of the Review:
The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
December 20, 2011
1.5
With how image-conscious Christianity has become, I'm surprised that this response to Rob Bell's Love Wins doesn't take many cues from the book that inspired it. Instead of echoing Bell's stylistic flourishes, postmodern structure, and graphic design obsession, Galli writes in a straightforward, often dreary way, that Hell is real and people who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go there. I point this out because this plodding, dogmatic text will almost certainly not appeal to the same people who feel excited and moved by Bell's writings, which begs the question - why bother writing it? I guess it's to give the establishment talking points that can be trotted out when some fresh-eyed idealistic hipster starts talking about making the world a better place NOW instead of worrying about eternal damnation.
So, how does the book fare as a biblically-based retort? In my opinion, not well. Although he made some good points, I have a lot of issues with both Galli's theology and his interpretation of what Bell was saying & filled up several pages with notes of things that didn't make sense or questions I had. If anyone has answers to any of these questions, I'm genuinely interested in what they are, btw...
The biggest issue I had with Galli was his discussion of free will and predestination, although that's too big an issue to get into in a book review. I also found his response to the Christus Victor view - that we have to take responsibility for our sins - contradictory, if forgiveness is, as claimed, truly perfect.
His ultimate answer to everything, unsurprisingly, is "We're not dealing with logic, we're dealing with what God says is true [...] The answer, as strange as it is simple, is that we can trust Him [to decide wisely and fairly]." That's easy to say, but when you hear the stories of the capricious, vindictive God of the Old Testament, or read Galli's assertion that God purposely chooses people who won't be saved (including those who never hear the gospel due to circumstance),
cognitive dissonance kicks in.
If Galli and others are able to simultaneously believe in God's all-encompassing love for and desire for reconciliation with humanity, AND his desire to expel and eternally punish people - even though He is the one who chooses whether or not those same people will believe in Him - more power to them. Personally, my brain can't bend that way, and so I'll continue to stick with what makes sense - trying to live in a Jesus-like way, but not worrying about whether I will be ultimately be rewarded for it.
With how image-conscious Christianity has become, I'm surprised that this response to Rob Bell's Love Wins doesn't take many cues from the book that inspired it. Instead of echoing Bell's stylistic flourishes, postmodern structure, and graphic design obsession, Galli writes in a straightforward, often dreary way, that Hell is real and people who do not accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour will go there. I point this out because this plodding, dogmatic text will almost certainly not appeal to the same people who feel excited and moved by Bell's writings, which begs the question - why bother writing it? I guess it's to give the establishment talking points that can be trotted out when some fresh-eyed idealistic hipster starts talking about making the world a better place NOW instead of worrying about eternal damnation.
So, how does the book fare as a biblically-based retort? In my opinion, not well. Although he made some good points, I have a lot of issues with both Galli's theology and his interpretation of what Bell was saying & filled up several pages with notes of things that didn't make sense or questions I had. If anyone has answers to any of these questions, I'm genuinely interested in what they are, btw...
The biggest issue I had with Galli was his discussion of free will and predestination, although that's too big an issue to get into in a book review. I also found his response to the Christus Victor view - that we have to take responsibility for our sins - contradictory, if forgiveness is, as claimed, truly perfect.
His ultimate answer to everything, unsurprisingly, is "We're not dealing with logic, we're dealing with what God says is true [...] The answer, as strange as it is simple, is that we can trust Him [to decide wisely and fairly]." That's easy to say, but when you hear the stories of the capricious, vindictive God of the Old Testament, or read Galli's assertion that God purposely chooses people who won't be saved (including those who never hear the gospel due to circumstance),
cognitive dissonance kicks in.
If Galli and others are able to simultaneously believe in God's all-encompassing love for and desire for reconciliation with humanity, AND his desire to expel and eternally punish people - even though He is the one who chooses whether or not those same people will believe in Him - more power to them. Personally, my brain can't bend that way, and so I'll continue to stick with what makes sense - trying to live in a Jesus-like way, but not worrying about whether I will be ultimately be rewarded for it.
December 19, 2013
Rob Bell’s Love Wins produced a firestorm in the Christian blogosphere. It is no surprise that a response book, or several response books, would be forthcoming. One of the first, God Wins, comes from the pen of Mark Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today. In his response to Bell’s controversial offering, Galli graciously attempts to correct the errors of the controversial, mega-church pastor.
Positives
Galli’s tone in this work is one of its most endearing qualities. Throughout God Wins, readers will encounter arguments that are not personal, not cruel, and not straw men. Galli finds himself thankful for the fact that Christians are thinking deeply about important issues, even though he disagrees with Bell’s conclusions. In a discussion of a topic that has generated a great deal of heat, the tone of Galli’s work is refreshing.
Generally, the theological positions that Galli presents are spot-on. He argues against the universalism present in Bell’s work (though Bell himself denies being a universalist, his conclusions are universalistic). Galli argues for a much higher view of the atonement than Bell, pointing out the importance of substitution and propitiation.
Negatives
It is simply difficult to read a response book to a book that you have not read. I have not chosen to read Love Wins, and thus cannot say whether Galli present’s Bell’s arguments fairly. My assumption, given Galli’s tone, is that he tries hard to present Bell fairly. Galli also makes it clear that he wants his book to be able to stand alone. However, it simply cannot stand on its own merits. God Wins is a popular-level, critical response, and that very genre of book limits its appeal.
Theologically, I find myself cringing occasionally as I hear Galli’s arguments. This is not to say that I agree with what Bell is credited as putting forth. Rather, I notice that Galli` is very open to views which I find inconsistent. For example, Galli declares that annihilationism is as plausible as an eternal hell; I disagree. Galli also declares at least twice that Scripture is silent on how God will deal with those who never hear the gospel. I would argue that Romans 1:18-20 and 10:13-ff are quite clear regarding this issue. So, though Galli is very solid on many issues, I cannot offer a blanket recommendation of his doctrinal positions.
Conclusion
Mark Galli has, with a very kind and gracious tone, put forth a work that is a fine first response to Rob Bell’s quite notorious book. There is much to recommend God Wins, but there are also weaknesses. Readers who are very interested in the controversy over Bell’s arguments will find Galli’s work helpful. Others who wish merely to study the issues of heaven, hell, and atonement should look elsewhere for more clear and thorough treatments of these important topics.
Audio
I listened to the fine recording of this book produced by ChristianAudio.com. As is always the case when dealing with Christian Audio, the quality of this audio book was excellent. I received a free audio copy of this work as part of the reviewers program in exchange for publishing an honest and thoughtful review.
Positives
Galli’s tone in this work is one of its most endearing qualities. Throughout God Wins, readers will encounter arguments that are not personal, not cruel, and not straw men. Galli finds himself thankful for the fact that Christians are thinking deeply about important issues, even though he disagrees with Bell’s conclusions. In a discussion of a topic that has generated a great deal of heat, the tone of Galli’s work is refreshing.
Generally, the theological positions that Galli presents are spot-on. He argues against the universalism present in Bell’s work (though Bell himself denies being a universalist, his conclusions are universalistic). Galli argues for a much higher view of the atonement than Bell, pointing out the importance of substitution and propitiation.
Negatives
It is simply difficult to read a response book to a book that you have not read. I have not chosen to read Love Wins, and thus cannot say whether Galli present’s Bell’s arguments fairly. My assumption, given Galli’s tone, is that he tries hard to present Bell fairly. Galli also makes it clear that he wants his book to be able to stand alone. However, it simply cannot stand on its own merits. God Wins is a popular-level, critical response, and that very genre of book limits its appeal.
Theologically, I find myself cringing occasionally as I hear Galli’s arguments. This is not to say that I agree with what Bell is credited as putting forth. Rather, I notice that Galli` is very open to views which I find inconsistent. For example, Galli declares that annihilationism is as plausible as an eternal hell; I disagree. Galli also declares at least twice that Scripture is silent on how God will deal with those who never hear the gospel. I would argue that Romans 1:18-20 and 10:13-ff are quite clear regarding this issue. So, though Galli is very solid on many issues, I cannot offer a blanket recommendation of his doctrinal positions.
Conclusion
Mark Galli has, with a very kind and gracious tone, put forth a work that is a fine first response to Rob Bell’s quite notorious book. There is much to recommend God Wins, but there are also weaknesses. Readers who are very interested in the controversy over Bell’s arguments will find Galli’s work helpful. Others who wish merely to study the issues of heaven, hell, and atonement should look elsewhere for more clear and thorough treatments of these important topics.
Audio
I listened to the fine recording of this book produced by ChristianAudio.com. As is always the case when dealing with Christian Audio, the quality of this audio book was excellent. I received a free audio copy of this work as part of the reviewers program in exchange for publishing an honest and thoughtful review.
September 10, 2013
Mark Galli is the senior managing editor for Christianity Today magazine. As a journalist educated at UC Santa Cruz, Fuller Seminary, and UC Davis, he is not someone whose résumé screams “intolerant fundamentalist.” Whether it’s meant as a compliment or criticism, most who know Mark would call him “open-minded.” He dialogues respectfully with those coming from various theological orientations. He doesn’t rush to judgment or hastily draw lines in the sand.
Galli is a big-tent evangelical, and that’s part of what makes this book so potent. His penetrating critique of Rob Bell’s Love Wins demonstrates that even a big tent can be only so big before terms such as Bible believing and evangelical, in the historic sense, begin to lose their meaning.
Galli understands not only his particular branch of Christianity, but what C. S. Lewis called mere Christianity—the irreducible core of our faith. Though Galli has strong theological underpinnings, this is not a sectarian work, it is a treatment that true Christians of nearly every background should be able to embrace and affirm together. (Should be, I said; I don’t mean that they actually will.)
Evangelical churches, both Calvinist and Arminian, hold to very different theological distinctives and have widely divergent positions on baptism, church government, and eschatology. But they have consistently shared the common belief that everyone will go to one of two eternal destinations: heaven or hell. This is not and never has been a fringe issue.
Mark Galli is a historian and a former editor of Christian History, one of my favorite magazines of all time (all 100 issues are on my shelf). With his grasp of theological history, Mark is acutely aware of something many modern authors, and I don’t just mean Rob Bell, appear not to grasp: God hasn’t given this generation—so accustomed to opinion polls that want to know what we think—the luxury of remaking theology on the fly and redefining the gospel.
Mark graciously and skillfully shows how the Love Wins version of the Good News is actually bad news. Our culture needs us not to reinforce its soft, malleable, and fleeting worldview but to offer a God-revealed, redemptive alternative. Mark’s trinitarian emphasis roots the gospel not in personal experience but in God’s own nature, which is what ultimately led to his creation and redemptive plan. That’s why this book is much more than a critique, and something of a manifesto.
C. S. Lewis warned against chronological snobbery—the assumption that recent viewpoints are better than ancient ones. Love Wins minimizes the doctrines of penal sacrifice and substitutionary atonement, ascribing them to “primitive cultures.” In contrast, Galli embraces these doctrines and quotes unapologetically (and in context) Jesus and Paul, as well as Luther, Edwards, and Spurgeon. The gospel he affirms is timely precisely because it is timeless.
God Wins is built on biblical and historical rock, not cultural sand. That’s exactly the needed foundation for a response to Love Wins, an attractive book heavy on feelings but light on biblical and historical reasoning.
Galli is a big-tent evangelical, and that’s part of what makes this book so potent. His penetrating critique of Rob Bell’s Love Wins demonstrates that even a big tent can be only so big before terms such as Bible believing and evangelical, in the historic sense, begin to lose their meaning.
Galli understands not only his particular branch of Christianity, but what C. S. Lewis called mere Christianity—the irreducible core of our faith. Though Galli has strong theological underpinnings, this is not a sectarian work, it is a treatment that true Christians of nearly every background should be able to embrace and affirm together. (Should be, I said; I don’t mean that they actually will.)
Evangelical churches, both Calvinist and Arminian, hold to very different theological distinctives and have widely divergent positions on baptism, church government, and eschatology. But they have consistently shared the common belief that everyone will go to one of two eternal destinations: heaven or hell. This is not and never has been a fringe issue.
Mark Galli is a historian and a former editor of Christian History, one of my favorite magazines of all time (all 100 issues are on my shelf). With his grasp of theological history, Mark is acutely aware of something many modern authors, and I don’t just mean Rob Bell, appear not to grasp: God hasn’t given this generation—so accustomed to opinion polls that want to know what we think—the luxury of remaking theology on the fly and redefining the gospel.
Mark graciously and skillfully shows how the Love Wins version of the Good News is actually bad news. Our culture needs us not to reinforce its soft, malleable, and fleeting worldview but to offer a God-revealed, redemptive alternative. Mark’s trinitarian emphasis roots the gospel not in personal experience but in God’s own nature, which is what ultimately led to his creation and redemptive plan. That’s why this book is much more than a critique, and something of a manifesto.
C. S. Lewis warned against chronological snobbery—the assumption that recent viewpoints are better than ancient ones. Love Wins minimizes the doctrines of penal sacrifice and substitutionary atonement, ascribing them to “primitive cultures.” In contrast, Galli embraces these doctrines and quotes unapologetically (and in context) Jesus and Paul, as well as Luther, Edwards, and Spurgeon. The gospel he affirms is timely precisely because it is timeless.
God Wins is built on biblical and historical rock, not cultural sand. That’s exactly the needed foundation for a response to Love Wins, an attractive book heavy on feelings but light on biblical and historical reasoning.
October 27, 2018
I won this book in the Goodreads giveaway.
Galli wrote this book in response to Rob Bell's Love Wins, which I have read. Bell had made many controversial remarks including that all people eventually end up in heaven. Galli makes some good points in referring to Bell's selective inclusion of Bible verses and how it made his argument deceptive. Galli isn't just on the attack of Bell's book, he points out the good issues Bell raised. I especially enjoyed Galli's response to Bell's hidden theme of universalism throughout Love Wins.
Another interesting topic Galli brought up was his belief that those who come to believe that Jesus is the messiah and thus go to heaven, only do so because God opens their eyes and basically chooses them to be Christians. Not sure if I believe that or not but it certainly takes even faith out of our hands.
Galli wrote this book in response to Rob Bell's Love Wins, which I have read. Bell had made many controversial remarks including that all people eventually end up in heaven. Galli makes some good points in referring to Bell's selective inclusion of Bible verses and how it made his argument deceptive. Galli isn't just on the attack of Bell's book, he points out the good issues Bell raised. I especially enjoyed Galli's response to Bell's hidden theme of universalism throughout Love Wins.
Another interesting topic Galli brought up was his belief that those who come to believe that Jesus is the messiah and thus go to heaven, only do so because God opens their eyes and basically chooses them to be Christians. Not sure if I believe that or not but it certainly takes even faith out of our hands.
July 27, 2011
A well-thought out critique of LOVE WINS... gracious & biblical. However, the writing is often dry.
I do appreciate the afterword about charitable engagement - which the author has showcased throughout his book.
Recommended for those wanting an orthodox response to LOVE WINS w/out a side of snarkiness.
I do appreciate the afterword about charitable engagement - which the author has showcased throughout his book.
Recommended for those wanting an orthodox response to LOVE WINS w/out a side of snarkiness.
September 25, 2012
Interesting - but I didn't really read Love wins all the way through. Lots of theology so it certainly made me think. I listened to it too so I may have zoned out a few times :)
June 13, 2012
The short answer to "how to review 'God Wins'" is this: if you want a good rebuttal to Love Wins, read Christ Alone.
Not that this doesn't have good points. It does. Calling Bell out for the way he treats the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is a good thing. Connecting the Resurrection to more than just a repetition of universal symbols is a good thing. Really hammering the difference between the boundaries allowed by grace and those of judgment is a good thing. And there are several others.
But so much of this is so short-sighted in taking on Bell's statements. The book itself claims to be "not about Rob Bell or Rob Bell's theology," and for the most part that's true, which is good, because some of the response books are just vicious attacks of idiocy. But this gets really bogged down in Bell's statements: in trying to say that we can't talk about Christianity as if it's all about us, Galli never provides a way that we can talk about it when the only lens we have is ours. It makes assumptions about the assumptions of "Love Wins" and doesn't fully present a case to replace their incorrect ones (like on page 71, when Galli asserts that LW "assumes that human beings are unbiased moral agents who stand above the fray and make independent decisions about the most important matters." Wrong. LW is always aware of the bias of humanity; it just has more faith in our making the correct decisions despite this than Galli does). And where LW errs on the side of human choice, GW seems to err on the side of sovereignty--for the doctrine of free will to be true, you have to allow a certain amount of breaking away from God and yet accepting that this does not make Him "helpless."
There are many good points, and I do wish Galli had put Appendix 3 (on How To Be Nice in Critiques, essentially) in the place of the utterly useless preface by Randy Alcorn, as the Appendix has even more good points. But it gets too bogged down in its own responsive nature to truly be useful as a stand-alone distillation of evangelical ideas on these matters. Like I said, go read "Christ Alone." Much better.
Not that this doesn't have good points. It does. Calling Bell out for the way he treats the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is a good thing. Connecting the Resurrection to more than just a repetition of universal symbols is a good thing. Really hammering the difference between the boundaries allowed by grace and those of judgment is a good thing. And there are several others.
But so much of this is so short-sighted in taking on Bell's statements. The book itself claims to be "not about Rob Bell or Rob Bell's theology," and for the most part that's true, which is good, because some of the response books are just vicious attacks of idiocy. But this gets really bogged down in Bell's statements: in trying to say that we can't talk about Christianity as if it's all about us, Galli never provides a way that we can talk about it when the only lens we have is ours. It makes assumptions about the assumptions of "Love Wins" and doesn't fully present a case to replace their incorrect ones (like on page 71, when Galli asserts that LW "assumes that human beings are unbiased moral agents who stand above the fray and make independent decisions about the most important matters." Wrong. LW is always aware of the bias of humanity; it just has more faith in our making the correct decisions despite this than Galli does). And where LW errs on the side of human choice, GW seems to err on the side of sovereignty--for the doctrine of free will to be true, you have to allow a certain amount of breaking away from God and yet accepting that this does not make Him "helpless."
There are many good points, and I do wish Galli had put Appendix 3 (on How To Be Nice in Critiques, essentially) in the place of the utterly useless preface by Randy Alcorn, as the Appendix has even more good points. But it gets too bogged down in its own responsive nature to truly be useful as a stand-alone distillation of evangelical ideas on these matters. Like I said, go read "Christ Alone." Much better.
May 10, 2014
I don't really have a problem with the content of this book, just the presentation. Despite the heated subject I found myself bored, not paying attention, and skimming. Like another reviewer mentioned...Love Wins had a more simplistic, easy to read, emotionally driven writing style and this book was just too wordy. I do appreciate that it was more factualy based instead of emotionaly based but the same attribute made the book more difficult to get into. I just think Galli's ideas could have been summarized better.
November 30, 2012
For the most part, I felt that Francis Chan's Erasing Hell was a better answer to Love Wins. Erasing Hell felt more researched and better supported. And maybe I just liked Francis Chan's attitude. I was a bit disappointed in this book.
I may read all 3 again. We'll see.
I may read all 3 again. We'll see.
March 3, 2014
Don't agree with all his interpretations but he definitely has good arguments for the existence of God, judgment, hell, and room for grace mercy and humans simply not ever being able to completely play God and know everything about eternity, who's in and who's out for the tough cases, and mercy.
Read
December 19, 2017I won this in a Goodreads giveaway. I stopped reading it. I'm not big on proselytizing.
I seldom relate to these self-help faith books, because the Church doesn't understand childhood/spiritual abuse, and I kept feeling more like...Idunno. I just couldn't get attached to it.
I seldom relate to these self-help faith books, because the Church doesn't understand childhood/spiritual abuse, and I kept feeling more like...Idunno. I just couldn't get attached to it.
Read
September 29, 2011Won in goodreads giveaway, review coming soon
January 19, 2012
Not sure of my conclusions, but find it is good to think about in light of Rob Bell's book.
May 3, 2012
This book is theologically well-founded. Very inspiring!
August 10, 2015
A "big tent" Evangelical identifies some good things about Rob Bell's work. But he also finds serious problems with his denials of hell.
July 28, 2025
I understand why the author felt the need to write this book but the author in my opinion doesn’t answer Rob Bell’s strongest questions and tries to discourage bringing our emotions to God even if they are doubtful.
The author also has a very specific belief system within the Christian tradition but makes it very clear that it is the only belief system that can exist (Total Depravity, Predestination)
The author also has a very specific belief system within the Christian tradition but makes it very clear that it is the only belief system that can exist (Total Depravity, Predestination)
Read
September 27, 2020Read with Love Wins. I wish they had something written or videos where they interacted with each other. I don't think Galli interacted as well with Rob as he could have.
I don't find myself convinced by Galli's reasoning. I respect his thinking on many matters but don't find this as well researched as other works. The convo on hell must continue!
I don't find myself convinced by Galli's reasoning. I respect his thinking on many matters but don't find this as well researched as other works. The convo on hell must continue!
May 6, 2022
Great prose but not so great argumentation. The author doesn't engage much in the "they say/I say" manner and makes more assertions then arguements about Rob Bell. An interesting book, nevertheless, especially with a new wave of ex-vangelicals, this book is a like a mini time capsule of that from a decade ago.
June 29, 2019
I think this should be read in conjunction with Love Wins.
I always have an issue when people cherry pick verses from the Bible to make any argument. I am a firm believer that the only verse that can stand on its own is John 3:16, summarized as "Love Y'all".
I always have an issue when people cherry pick verses from the Bible to make any argument. I am a firm believer that the only verse that can stand on its own is John 3:16, summarized as "Love Y'all".
November 20, 2018
Good exposition of why "Love wins" is only half the story. Because "God Wins", justice wins too. Which is why a universal message like that of Ron Bell fails.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 15, 2019
Excellent read; needed for anyone reading Rob Bell's Love Wins.
October 17, 2020
There are definitely better books to read about Christianity and thoughts surrounding Heaven/Hell. This one is a rebuttal to Love Wins, so it makes sense in that context, but otherwise not the best.
August 12, 2016
This book takes more time to tell us what right philosophy is than it does to tell us what is wrong with Bell's philosophy. On the surface that would seem to indicate that the book takes a positive approach to its review. I'm sure that is true. But it also turns it into just another theology book, not a critique of Love Wins.
In Love Wins the writer stretched or misrepresented scripture 9 out of the 10 times he used it. He repeatedly took statements of famous evangelicals out of context in an effort to garner their support for his radical theology. Galli only references these events in passing, for the most part not even challenging the fact that Love Wins relies upon these fallacies to build its case. In short, Galli's response to Bells heresy is to point us to theology most Christians are familiar with and say, "That's the truth, folks." I can't argue with that - that is the truth. But it leaves people woefully unprepared to answer the radical statements of Love Wins.
Is it okay to take people words out of context? Given that if Lewis or Luther were alive they could sue for this I would say no. Is it okay to misquote scripture so that it barely resembles what was said? Is it okay to pull it away from the verses that explain what it says? Galli doesn't challenge Bell on this issue except in the mildest manner. The fact is that Bell's is one of the few theology books that can easily be critiqued on all fronts - the writing method used would have gotten the writer reprimanded in college for abusing/misquoting sources, the repetitive use of literary fallacies would have him graded down on form and finally the theology offered is in desperate need of addressing.
Christianity has an abundance of works that deal with right theology. What we don't have is a good critique of Love Wins which takes a point by point look at just what is wrong with the theology presented in that work. Ultimately this books doesn't prove what it sets out to do, respond to Love Wins.
In Love Wins the writer stretched or misrepresented scripture 9 out of the 10 times he used it. He repeatedly took statements of famous evangelicals out of context in an effort to garner their support for his radical theology. Galli only references these events in passing, for the most part not even challenging the fact that Love Wins relies upon these fallacies to build its case. In short, Galli's response to Bells heresy is to point us to theology most Christians are familiar with and say, "That's the truth, folks." I can't argue with that - that is the truth. But it leaves people woefully unprepared to answer the radical statements of Love Wins.
Is it okay to take people words out of context? Given that if Lewis or Luther were alive they could sue for this I would say no. Is it okay to misquote scripture so that it barely resembles what was said? Is it okay to pull it away from the verses that explain what it says? Galli doesn't challenge Bell on this issue except in the mildest manner. The fact is that Bell's is one of the few theology books that can easily be critiqued on all fronts - the writing method used would have gotten the writer reprimanded in college for abusing/misquoting sources, the repetitive use of literary fallacies would have him graded down on form and finally the theology offered is in desperate need of addressing.
Christianity has an abundance of works that deal with right theology. What we don't have is a good critique of Love Wins which takes a point by point look at just what is wrong with the theology presented in that work. Ultimately this books doesn't prove what it sets out to do, respond to Love Wins.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews