Kris and I have been gone for Spring Break, and so there will be no Weekly Meanderings … our internet connection last week was just not quick enough to accomplish the task. But today I will have two posts, this one on Rob Bell reviews and then later today a very special book review.
Notice how the reviews of Rob Bell’s book are all over the map — and that is why I have what I do. Stuff from different angles. On top of this, I have what Mars Hill has officially said — many seem to have missed how Mars Hill has handled this media nightmare.
Let’s start with what Mars Hill has said officially. I know of no other church connected to American evangelicalism that seems to be endorsing a second chance after a kind of purgatorial view of hell, but this purgatorial view of hell is for all humans.
What does Love Wins say about heaven and hell?
Love Wins recognizes heaven and hell to be realities all around us. We see hell everyday through the atrocities of war, famine, human trafficking, broken relationships, and abuse. We also see heaven all around us through acts of love, kindness, and compassion.
There is also the reality of heaven and hell in the future. Our ultimate future hope is a restored creation under Christ where God will dwell with us forever on a restored heaven and earth [Rev 21-22]. There are many who accept the invitation of the life of heaven and many who reject the invitation. Those who reject the invitation experience a purifying “fire” of judgment in hell, yet there is hope. We live in the hope that the redemptive work of Christ is beyond what we can ask or imagine. Love Wins helps us have a biblical imagination that leaves room for the hope of the redemption of all while recognizing humanities free will to continue to reject God.
Does Love Wins promote Universalism?No. Rob isn’t suggesting Universalism [all will be saved, regardless of their faith]. He is proposing that God’s love is so big that the invitation to God’s grace may extend into the next life so that all could be saved. Love Wins clearly points to the centrality of Jesus and the work of his life, death, and resurrection and the hope that Christ’s work will bring restoration to all. Jesus is the only way to God. God’s love does not force anyone and there may be those who continue to reject the invitation extended to them. Love Wins speaks often speaks of human freedom [72-73, 103-104, 113, 115, 117]. Rob shares, “Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.” [113]
I’ve been asked a few times why I ignored Mark Galli’s fine review, and there is one reason: I forgot. (Sorry Mark.) So here I add it since the post seems still to be active:
These thinkers, of course, are all representatives of the tradition called liberal Protestantism. By associating Bell with this tradition, I’m not suggesting that he is beyond the pale or that he holds no orthodox views. I’m trying to place him in theological context. Liberalism is a tradition that has enriched the church in many ways. It has shown a willingness to entertain hard questions; a desire to integrate science and theology; a sophisticated approach to engaging culture; a passion for social justice. Many inspirational world figures—Albert Schweitzer, Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King Jr., to name three—come out of this tradition.
But for evangelicals, liberalism presents two problems. First, liberals tend to relativize the particularity of the gospel. They believe it is no longer reasonable to hold to one or (usually) more core teachings of the New Testament. For some it’s blood atonement, for others Jesus’ divinity, or Jesus’ bodily resurrection, or miracles, or the Last Judgment. Instead, liberals tend to make Jesus sound like an expression of something all reasonable people already believe or intuit. Adolf Von Harnack, a product of 19th century bourgeois European society, said that Jesus taught the congenial doctrines of “the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” Bultmann reinterpreted the New Testament as existential philosophy. Rob Bell, at least in Love Wins, questions the relevance of substitutionary atonement and the Last Judgment, and argues that Jesus is the vivid image of the eternal reality we all experience.
Justin Taylor’s and Kevin DeYoung’s criticisms are well known and the most complete … and the excerpted stuff below says it all. They represent many, many in The Gospel Coalition (and beyond). Here’s Justin’s capturing of Kevin’s detailed (20 page) response: “Kevin’s opening paragraph summarizes the book’s thesis and argument:
Love Wins, by megachurch pastor Rob Bell, is, as the subtitle suggests, “a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Here’s the gist: Hell is what we create for ourselves when we reject God’s love. Hell is both a present reality for those who resist God and a future reality for those who die unready for God’s love. Hell is what we make of heaven when we cannot accept the good news of God’s forgiveness and mercy. But hell is not forever. God will have his way. How can his good purposes fail? Every sinner will turn to God and realize he has already been reconciled to God, in this life or in the next. There will be no eternal conscious torment. God says no to injustice in the age to come, but he does not pour out wrath (we bring the temporary suffering upon ourselves), and he certainly does not punish for eternity. In the end, love wins.
After listing some of the book’s virtues, he summarizes why it is so troubling:
The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.
He also explains why this is such a difficult book to review; namely, that one doesn’t know where to begin:
Love Wins is such a departure from historic Christianity, that there’s no easy way to tackle it. You can’t point to two or three main problems or three or four exegetical missteps. This is a markedly different telling of the gospel from start to finish.
And Eugene Peterson is talking directly at the conflagration in these words:
Do evangelicals need to reexamine our doctrines of hell and damnation?
Yes, I guess I do think they ought to reexamine. They ought to be a good bit more biblical, not taking things out of context.
But the people who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything. They have a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not. But that’s not what it means to live in community.
Luther said that we should read the entire Bible in terms of what drives toward Christ. Everything has to be interpreted through Christ. Well, if you do that, you’re going to end up with this religion of grace and forgiveness. The only people Jesus threatens are the Pharisees. But everybody else gets pretty generous treatment. There’s very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell.
Michael Krahn has an interesting take. He thinks this book will lead to a gradual dismissal of Rob Bell: “But the frenzy [over McLaren's New Kind of Christianity] faded, the reviews dried up and since that time it seems that many Evangelicals, following the lead of early reviewers have stopped paying much attention. Case in point: Brian McLaren just released a new book (three days ago in fact and also, as it turns out, published by HarperOne) and we’ve hardly noticed. You can make the case that all eyes are on Rob Bell at the moment and that McLaren has flown under the radar on this one, but maybe there is a simpler answer – maybe most Evangelicals just don’t care anymore.Love Wins is Rob Bell’s “McLaren Moment” and this is what I think Piper was getting at when he said “Farewell Rob Bell.”
Julie Clawson stands with Rob Bell in this discussion: “This message that God loves his creation so much that God refuses to give up on us, forms the core of Bell’s book. Bell points out, that since the early church fathers, Christians have held that since God’s central essence is love, it is reconciliation and not eternal suffering that brings God the most glory. What we believe and how we act are vitally important, but in the end upholding and glorifying the essence of God is most important. And when we insist that people who think differently than us, or who haven’t had the same revelation as us, or who said a different prayer than us will be eternally separate from a God the scriptures say works for and longs for the redemption of all things, we are stripping God of his power and denying him glory.”
Rich Mouw, President at Fuller Seminary, sides with Rob Bell in his general orientation: “Some folks zeroed in on that one story to condemn me as a heretic. I find their attitude puzzling. Maybe they think that folks like Rob Bell and me go too far in the direction of leniency, but what about folks who go in the other direction? I just received an angry email from someone who pulled a comment out of something I wrote a few years ago in Christianity Today. A prominent evangelical had criticized those of us who have been in a sustained dialogue with Catholics for giving the impression that a person can be saved without having the right theology about justification by faith. My response to that: of course a person can be saved without having the right theology of justification by faith. A straightforward question: Did Mother Teresa go to hell? My guess is that she was a little confused about justification by faith alone. If you think that means she went to hell, I have only one response: shame on you. Why don’t folks who criticize Rob Bell for wanting to let too many people in also go after people like that who want to keep too many people out? Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess?”
Nate Dawson weighs in favor of Rob Bell: “Love Wins because we are free to choose heaven and hell, for eternity. The questions left open in this book are not the ones the book is intending to answer. I’m sorry, if you don’t get that — then you don’t get the book. That’s just how it is my friends. This book answers YES to you and me, even when we think we’re not worth it. Even when the Calvinists have made us feel like themselves (that is, utterly depraved). God, in Christ, has already rewritten your story and mine, because Love Wins. All we have to do is live into it! The choosing never stops — we can choose hell or heaven — forever.”
Scot/or anyone else who has read the book,
I’m having a hard time seeing much difference between what Bell is saying and what CS Lewis said in The Great Divorce.
What am I missing? Why do so many love Lewis, but hate Bell for saying something very similar?
Why must you always be so reasonable and sane?
Thanks for the variety of responses. It was helpful.
Hey Scot.
I just started my review (six part series) of Rob’s book today. I’m calling it:
Divided by Hell?
An Assessment of “Love Wins” by Rob Bell: Heresy, Orthodoxy & Final Judgment – Part I: http://bit.ly/gQDJQZ
Scot, thanks for the link to my post about John Piper’s “Farewell Rob Bell” tweet and my analysis of what I think he meant by that.
Piper somehow found his way to the post, read it and responded, again via Twitter (which sent my traffic through the roof of course).
His response was that my analysis was “Pretty close”.
@Jennifer #1: I often wonder how many people have read much of Lewis beyond Narnia and maybe Mere Christianity. I know I knew OF him long before I new much of what he believed or taught in his other books.
@Michael #4: I know I can personally vouch for your theory in my own views of both authors. I was interested in a good deal of McLaren’s work for a while and then when New Kind of Christianity came out I found myself wishing to move along. Not because I was angry over what he said, but because I felt tired of this dynamic that seemed to me to be one of theological play without regard for the authority many readers give to published text. There was something about that book, and this one by Bell, that’s just left me with a sense of controversy for its own sake.
That being said, I’m incredibly grateful for the discussions here and other places that have pushed me to reexamine my own beliefs about what the bible teaches about hell and God’s judgment.
Scot,
Nice perspective-making here. I think one of the benefits of all of these ‘controversies’ of late is an elevation (again) of theology over the pragmatics of church growth (and early elements of emergent) methodology. My summary of the last 2 weeks worth of LOVE WINS discussions would be that many of us pastoral types don’t have a solid historical perspective, or even a well-formed theology of Heaven and Hell.
Thanks for your blog, Scot.
Terry
Speaking of CS Lewis, Rob Bell’s ideas are very much like those of Lewis’s mentor, George MacDonald, in his carefully worked out Unspoken Sermons. MacDonald gave prominence to the image of the fire of God’s love.
Thanks for the links Scot. As a planting pastor in Grand Rapids of a new expression of the Church here, I am deeply troubled and saddened for what this will mean for my community, the division and disunity it will cause.
In my opinion this conversation has moved well beyond universalism. I think that actually distracts from some more primary issues I see going on here, mainly his understanding of God, Jesus, human nature, and the nature of salvation itself.
Petersen does not have the right to say that “those who are against Rob Bell are not going to reexamine anything.” Petersen knows full well that there are potentially good reasons for objecting to this book even for those whose doctrine is not entirely settled. And it is not true that “the only people Jesus threatens are the pharisees.” He tells his own disciples to “fear the One who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (That doesn’t sound like Bell’s hell at all. Destruction? Fear of the One who is able to destroy?) Some of us are getting tired of the assumptions made as to why folks are upset about this book. It’s because they can’t stand to live with ambiguity. It’s because they believe in “brickianity.” It’s because they revel in retribution. It’s because they love controversy. It’s because they make a certain view of the atonement equal the Gospel. I am sure that for some, much of that is probably, sadly, the case. But it is unfair to suggest that only such perverse reasons are behind the alarm over this book. Some of us are alarmed because of the shoddy exegesis, the intellectual dishonesty and the evasion of things taught by Our Lord. You may not see those things in his book, but please stop assuming that this is only controversial because of the perverse motivation of traditionalists. (BTW, if anyone has questioned and agonized over the doctrine of hell, I have. I just think that Bell’s way of dealing with it cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus.)
Scot,
Thanks for the compilation of all these reviews. I have been waiting for YOUR review of the book. Have you written a review, and have I missed it? If not, are you planning to write a review?
I ought to retract what I said about threatening. There is a difference between Jesus telling the disciples to fear and threatening the pharisees, so perhaps Peterson is right. My point was that the pharisees were not the only one’s who could potentially have been in danger of hell, but I may have misunderstood Peterson’s point. So, erase, rewind, delete.
Ty, give me a week or more — I want some of the heat to cool down.
Michael, thanks. Do you know how often Jesus was speaking to his own disciples when he used “hell” language? Often.
I have a hard time distinguishing Bell’s thoughts from McLaren’s in The Last Word and the Word After That.
I like Mouw’s posture of openness to dialogue with groups that are quickly dismissed.
My issues with Bell’s book are more shallow. While no one likes an oil spill, I don’t think it belongs in a list of atrocities with sexual assault and torture. Also, as one who lives near Ft. Hood, I wouldn’t have used “insurgent” to describe those hung on the crosses next to Jesus. Words have meaning. In this case I think Rob Bell goes the slam poetry route using provocative language simply to be provocative.
If Rob Bell is correct why does it seem like the second coming/eschaton is dragging on forever? Why does it seem that time and life is dragging on so that all will have their chance on this earth (except those who never heard the Good News)? The end is the end, that is why Christ did not return soon as his disciples expected. Everyone is having their chance and most are blowing it.
Jennifer, The Great Divorce by Lewis was fiction, he himself said that. He was not teaching that people would take trips from Hell to Heaven, but IF that was possible they would still choose Hell by rejecting the message of the gospel. Bell on the other hand is teaching this as fact.
I think Eugene Peterson says it well! If only we had more church leaders talking like this.
RE: 13 – Most of the folks being crucified were actually traitors, like the zealots. They were guerilla terrorists in the Roman Empire, and the only Saviour they were looking for wielded a sword and would kill all of the Romans. Thieves would have just had their hands chopped off.
Saying that the folks next to Jesus were insurgents is actually likely quite accurate. Crucifixion was for rebellion against the Empire.
Why is it that people want the book to say everything that Bell or Mars Hill has to say, rather using it as a starting point? Those who actually listen to the sermons at Mars Hill will see that there is much more depth going on than what is in those books…therefore, the purpose of the books cannot be to answer questions. Yet the only purpose we are willing to read them is, apparently, to get Bell to answer specific questions.
And then we complain because Bell does not fulfill our purposes.
hey Jennifer, I think you make a good point, that I have wondered myself. I think, as Bob points out, Lewis hinted at the possibility through metaphor and analogy, such as the Great Divorce and parts of the 5th book in the Narnia series. People were free to overlook that or to see it as poetry or fiction. N.T. Wright also hints around at some of the same possibilities in the afterlife but Rob Bell comes out without much nuance and is provocative about it. At least it got a great conversation started and exposed a lot of uncharitable theological anger … sigh …
i always appreciate the posts in here and the mostly civil tone of conversation … thanks!
i wonder how many people died violently in the 100 or 150 years after the Reformation in religious conflict? maybe we have made a little progress … but then again there was the Cristero War in MEx, La Violencia in Colombia and the Spanish Civil War, all in the 20th century … so maybe not.
Hey Todd (#17)
I agree with your statement: “Those who actually listen to the sermons at Mars Hill will see that there is much more depth going on than what is in those books…”
We live about 4 hours from Grand Rapids and visit Mars Hill when we’re there. The teaching has always been solid although Rob has never taught on a week that we’ve been there.
I’m not saying that those two things are mutually exclusive BTW
Hi Scot,
Just want to say thank you for these variety of perspectives.
Is it difficult for those who are pastors(shepherds), who care deeply about people to have a historical view about hell?
“It’s because they can’t stand to live with ambiguity. It’s because they believe in “brickianity.” – this is a great line!
I am a Fan of the Rob Bell, His style is to ask the questions, behind the questions – they don’t necessarily need to be answered, but allow us to learn,stretch ourselves etc. I can also see why Calvinists and others struggle with it, but the doctrine of hell will always be discussed, debated and indeed has been for many years. But does is mean we have to build camps on both sides and argue our case??
Indeed since the announcement of Bells new book, i think it shows a lot about the American mind set and as an Irish Christian coming from a traditional background, is this type of debate/discussion I have to look forward to again…I also agree with what others have said here, that is has gone well beyond universalism and that Rob Bell does not support universalism.
However I believe,that the essence of our Christian God is Love, “God is love” that indeed he will not give up on us. Cos if I cant somehow reconcile God with man, in such a way that is unconditional and irrevocable, then “God” is very limited. Or at least we have limited God.. Hell, well I just have to look around.. that is enough for me!
I have tried always read the Bible in terms of what leads us to see Christ..
Thanks Scot for this posting. I especially liked that you mentioned Mars Hill and their handling of the release of this book. Jesus Creed has been a calming voice in the middle of this storm. Thank you for that. I look forward to your review later this month.
Lourens – You wrote, “Everyone is having their chance and most are blowing it.” One of the questions Bell wants us to wrestle with is, “How is that possibly good news?” You can certainly believe that, with scriptures to prove your point, but how does it qualify as any kind of good news?
I’m still amused that many of the critics are targeting Bell as a diehard universalist. Even Mohler, in his article, wants to call him a universalist even though he admits it doesn’t fit:
“He also argues for a form of universal salvation” later in the article becomes “Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation” (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/16/we-have-seen-all-this-before-rob-bell-and-the-reemergence-of-liberal-theology/)
I think part of this is because they denounced him as a universalist to begin with and now can’t back away from that accusation lest they be forced to think about an apology, in which case their base would crucify them. Instead, they go after his theology of the cross, that he doesn’t think talking about “blood” carries significant weight in contemporary culture 1000s of years removed from animal sacrifices, or that he asks “subversive questions.” If they just keep reinforcing each others statements, right or wrong, maybe they can convince people that Bell shouldn’t be listened to. Historically speaking, that strategy hasn’t worked too well.
When people call out Rob Bell as a heretic they sound like the disciples in Luke 9:49 “but Master we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us. Do not stop him, Jesus said, for whoever is not against me is for me.”
I feel for Rob Bell. In the pastoral circles I run in, there is a constant labeling of who’s in and who’s out. I’m always hearing about the “slippery slope.” So, I hold my cards close to my chest because I don’t want my name and our church being seen as dangerous theologically. When you love Jesus, love the Scriptures, live missionally and have hope for the world; its hard to receive a label from the Christian community that makes you out to be working for the Devil. In a way I respect Rob’s courage.
On the recent Brian McLaren book release, which yes, was completely overshadowed by the Rob Bell Love Wins imbroglio — it (Naked Spirituality), IMV, is one of his best, and far better than some of his recent works, which I found to be ho-hum.
I really like Mouw’s observation about how views that might be overly generous about who is ultimately saved get treated (in Evangelical circles) more harshly than views that might be overly restrictive. It seems that our natural inclination is to want “others” to be excluded — we can imagine God keeping more “others” out but the thought of God letting more “others” in to share the grace we have received is offensive.
I’m sure that asymmetry says something profound about human psychology, and human sin.
Shameless self promotion, but I have tried to take on the book as if I were having an actual conversation with someone asking the ultimate questions Bell is asking in each chapter.
Links:
Part 1 – http://www.diningwithsinners.org/2011/03/16/love-wins-chapter-1/
Part 2 – http://www.diningwithsinners.org/2011/03/17/conversion-paul-and-the-twelve-lovewins/
Part 3 – http://www.diningwithsinners.org/2011/03/18/heaven-lovewins-chapter-2/
Part 4 coming Monday – Heaven? What is it? Where is it?
Scot, I’d gently challenge “media nightmare” in relation to Mars Hill. Rob is intentionally provocative. Publisher has stirred interest, knowing controversy would ensue. In other words, it’s not as though some ‘nightmare,’ inflicted by the media is at play, and Mars Hill and Rob Bell had nothing to do with it. They’re not innocent ‘victims,’ caught in the vortex. They are players in it, no?
I think that the comparison of C.S. Lewis’ views on Hell with Rob Bell’s views on Hell is mistaken. The Great Divorce, the most cited work in this instance, is ambiguous towards the traditional view, true, but it is also ambiguous towards Bell’s view. Take a look at this (admittedly lengthy) quote:
[The Intelligent Man has just explained his plan for the improvement of Hell]
“Anyway (here he dropped his voice) it’d be better, you know. Everyone admits that. Safety in numbers.”
“Safety from what?” I began, but my companion nudged me to be silent. I changed my question. “But look here,” said I, “if they [the people in Hell] can get everything just by imagining it, why would they want any real things, as you call them?”
“Eh? Oh, they’d like houses that really kept out the rain.”
“Their present houses don’t?”
“Well, of course not. How could they?”
“What the devil is the use of building them, then?” The Intelligent Man put his head closer to mine.
“Safety again,” he muttered. “At least, the feeling of safety. It’s all right NOW: but later on – you understand.”
“What?” said I, almost involuntarily sinking my voice to a whisper. He articulated noiselessly as if expecting that I understood lip-reading. I put my ear close to his mouth.
“Speak up,” I said.
“It will be dark presently,” he mouthed.
“You mean the evening IS really going to turn into a night in the end?” He nodded. “What’s that got to do with it?” said I.
“Well…no one wants to be out of doors when that happens.”
“Why?” His reply was so furtive that I had to ask him several times to repeat it. When he had done so, being a little annoyed (as one so often is with whisperers), I replied without remembering to lower my voice.
“Who are ‘They,’ I asked. “And what are you afraid they’ll do to you? And why should they come out when it’s dark? And what protection could an imaginary house give if there was any danger?”
Scot,
This stuff about Bell has reminded me of a quote from your book, “One.Life”: “There’s a difference between focusing on being right and focusing on being a follower of Jesus.”
Thanks for the book.
Charles
No mention of Mark Galli’s? Denny Burk’s?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/april/lovewins.html
What continues to strike me is Bell’s hostility to traditional views. He does not just set forth an alternative viewpoint. He denounces what mainstream evangelicals believe. And what he denounces is a straw man, as Mark Galli well notes.
The evangelical left seems to be getting more narrow-minded.
Christine, yes, I agree. He deliberately and provocative set this book up with that promo video. But it’s still a nightmare. I don’t want to suggest at all that they are victims.
Great point about the “McLaren Moment” for Bell. I think that is very perceptive.
At this point the Emergent leadership (even though none of them claim the title) has shown that a moment when they could have offered a reasonable reply to the burgeoning post-foundationalist/modernist/etc question they defaulted to tired, dead, theological liberalism.
Evangelicals will always reject that answer. As they should.
C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity chapter on “Nice Men or New Men”….
“There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”
Now Ben, careful about quoting Lewis in context. Might mess folks up.
Ben #30,
Strongly agree. I see Lewis’s “position” as dramatically different than Bell’s. Lewis defends “narrow” orthodoxy in chapter 5. And the liberal theologian in that chapter bears a lot of similarities to Rob Bell– including being successful in selling lots of books.
“I took every risk.”
“What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came? Popularity, sales for your books, invitations . . .”
“We didn’t want the other to be true. We were afraid of crude salvationism, afraid of a breach within the spirit of the age . . .”
Seems to me that an illustration of the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of the workers in the vineyard is going on here. The “older brothers” and “first laborers” still are scandalized by the fact that their father/landowner might lavishly welcome the lost son or might equally compensate the late worker.
I recently listened to a local pastor tell a group of youth pastors that if we are not training prodigal sons and daughters how to return home to their father, we are creating a generation of older brothers.
Why is it that some of those who seem to most vocally defend the doctrine of “by grace alone” also most vocally insist on the limits of the reach of that grace? It’s not making sense to me.
Who is God if God’s grace isn’t gracefully gracious?
Scot, thank you for compiling these different perspectives. What an eye-opener! I’m getting ready to sit down and read Kevin DeYoung’s 20-page review, and yes, I’m still debating whether I want to read the book.
As others have mentioned, I’m looking forward to your review/perspective on the book. This statement in Tim Challies’ review sums up why: “Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let’s be honest—many truths are very, very hard to swallow.”
I’ve always appreciated how you tend to bring clarity to the confusion, while at the same time, allowing us readers to wrestle safely and together in the chaos in which we live.
This is a fascinating discussion, which I believe is what Rob Bell was trying to start here.
The comparison with Lewis and the Great Divorce is an apt beginning, but as has been pointed out, breaks down in the end as all analogies do in the end.
What I find interesting about the whole furor over this book and the subject in it, is that there seems to be a segment of Christianity that believes Bell is the first to raise such questions.
N.T. Wright seems to me to be covering much the same ground in grappling with the issues of Heaven and Hell in his book ‘Surprised by Hope’. Here’s an interesting interview with Wright from Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html
Scot, thanks for framing a wonderful conversation.
First to raise such issues? Go all the way back to St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Isaac the Syrian, and many others to find those who, though not always coming to exactly the same conclusion, definitely raised these issues.
I’m also simultaneously amused and exasperated that people keep referring to ‘hell’ as a ‘concrete place’ where people receive a different treatment from God as the ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ view of Christianity. The idea of an underworld as a concrete ‘place’ doesn’t even really come from the ancient Jewish understanding. At least by the time of Christ, Sheol had developed into a more sophisticated understanding as the experience and reality of death. And Christians developed that further in the images of Christ harrowing Sheol or Hades. (Hades was used as a Greek stand in for Sheol and not in the pagan understanding as an actual place under the ground.)
The consensus across the ancient Church was that death was universally defeated by Christ. (That’s why Christians believe in the general resurrection of the dead.) Moreover, the consensus was that we all experience the same reality of the love of God. God does not reward some and torture others. ‘Hell’ (really gehenna or the lake of fire) is our experience of the consuming love of a God we do not want and cannot escape combined with the torment of ruling passions we can no longer express outwardly.
That’s the most ancient ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ view of hell. If you believe anything else, it’s a more ‘modern’ innovation. I recognize that it’s *a* tradition with its own history, but it’s emphatically *not* the traditional or historical view.
Lewis, Wright, and from all appearances even Rob Bell, come much closer to the true historical Christian understanding.
Scott, by “traditional’ or “historical” I think you are talking Eastern Orthodoxy vs. later post-Augustinian and Catholic understandings of hell, no?
Otherwise, it’s not all that easy to make a case that Gehenna or Lake of Fire in the NT itself is purgative. (The point being that the historical would be the original, the NT itself.)
@Michael #9,11
I agree with you Michael that there are numerous people who might disagree with Bell’s book who do not fit the descriptions being put forward. However, I think the issue is the media frenzy surrounding the book. there are those who believe that all controversies of the Christian faith are summarily ‘settled’ and that further discussion equals rebellion. In the public eye, this sentiment (that nothing more needs to discussed) eclipses the reasons anyone else has for disaggreeing with the book. And, it seems that the ‘everything is settled’ group are very loud and prominent. it is not that others lack valid or important disagreements with Bell, it is rather that there is something else being exposed that supercedes the book itself.
the bigger issue is that many American church leaders have immense media exposure without acknowledging or realizing that Christian orthodoxy is much broader then their own views. anyone who has actually read ancient texts and/or have exposure to non-American churches would be far less likely to freak out as if war were breaking out.
being from Newfoundland and an Anglican background, I initially found evangelicalism to be freakishly strange and kinda scary. it took years to adjust to evangelical sentiments. i would never equate evangelicalism as a forerunner of the faith, and i find the emerging movement’s honest reflection, and searching heart, a far more authentic representation despite its fumbling and stumbling in doctrinal matters.
No Scot, the underlying point of my comment had nothing to do with whether or not gehenna or the lake of fire is purgative. The predominant view in Orthodoxy is that it largely is not. We fix the direction in which we are shaping ourselves in this life and it’s at least very difficult to change that direction after death. God is working always to turn us toward him, but he will not override our will. Even in Orthodoxy, the hope that God’s love will eventually ‘win out’ is a minority view. Personally, it’s a hope I share, but I try not to over-state it.
Those talking about a ‘traditional’ or ‘historical’ view in the Protestant sense largely seem to be talking about ‘hell’ as a concrete ‘place’ where people are eternally tormented or punished for their sins by God as an external force. It’s that understanding which is, as far as I can tell, contrary to everything ancient Christians believed. It has nothing to do with whether the torment we may experience is ‘purgative.’ Most would hold that it is not. Nevertheless, all would hold that the experience of torment is the same experience of the love of God as those who experience it as warmth and comfort. God does not torture some and reward others. Everyone experiences his love. The question is not about God. The question is about us.
A minority within Orthodoxy believe that God’s love will eventually warm even the coldest heart. The majority agree with N.T. Wright, that we fashion ourselves into something like an ex-human being who can no longer experience the love of God without torment.
Again, it’s the view of ‘hell’ as a concrete ‘place’ where people are tortured by God that is neither ‘historical’ nor ‘traditional.’
What about Mark Galli’s review in CT? He wrote a very strong article and he definitely doesn’t represent the YRR crowd. It seems like the way you set these reviews up, it is Gospel Coalition against the world and I don’t think that is accurate.
Scott,
Thanks for that. I agree that most think of hell as a place, and they do so because of Gehenna texts in the Gospels and lake of fire in Revelation. Both are very “place-ish.” No? (At least in concrete image.)
But they are images, no doubt, and not just historicized places where 1st Century folks were punished.
As images, what do they evoke or connote? I agree with you. Hell, as I argue in One.Life, is the experience of utter absence in the presence of God — and I see you saying it is the torment of experiencing an incapacity — or something — to respond in love to God’s offer of love?
Hell as place is fixed in (Western) Christian consciousness due, in part, to both Dante and Bunyan. No?
From Mohler’s blog: “In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.” Scot, it seems to me that Christianity needs to be rescued from ‘heresy hunters’. All of this is saddening/sickening….
The world watches and …
Reggie, thanks. I should have included Mark Galli’s review … and when I realized I hadn’t the post was already fully active. Krahn’s review is not a TGC critique.
Reggie, I added a clip from Galli too.
Dante’s views of hell as they are used in this discussion is a whole other problem. Please let me urge all concerned not to make Dante into a caricature; he has much to add to our theology on this matter.
The comparison of Love Wins to The Great Divorce is appropriate, with one caveat. C.S. Lewis closes his preface with, “I beg readers to remember that this is fantasy. It has of course-or intended to have-a moral. But the trans-mortal conditions are solely imaginative supposal: they are not even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us. The last thing I wish to arouse is factual curiosity about details of the after-world.”
Thanks, Scot. I thought that there were many great quotes from Galli’s review and you picked a good section to highlight.
My personal journey with this present debate on Hell began last summer and caused me to begin to rethink this doctrine. In August 2010, I led a short-term team to the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The Lakota are all but a forgot people of our heartland and have suffered much oppression at the hands of the Wasichu, that’s us white folk. They possess very much a different culture and worldview. The Lakota are very resistant to the Gospel, missiologically an unreached people group, maintain much of their tribal spiritism, and sadly even continuing the practice of the Sun Dance (where they pierce themselves through the chest and hang from a tree for 3 days in atonement for their sins). There I met an intelligent young Lakota man named Tarrance and found him to a spiritual seeker. We talked about his religious beliefs, and mine, and the fact that they believe in a creator God, Tunkasina, who is good and benevolent, and in Inyan, through which all things were made. The point of resistance to Christianity doesn’t come so much on who Jesus was, they believe he a good Spirit man sent by God. The Lakota reject the idea that a good God would send anyone to Hell, and therefore they reject the White Man’s religion, one that caused much strife on their land a little more than 120 years ago. The only thing that I could say to Tarrance was that Hell is our choice, and that Jesus had paid the price so that we would not be separated eternally from God.
I left Pine Ridge feeling that some bridges of understanding were built, but my thinking was challenged and so upon returning home I started to explore this question of hell. Now, I am no longer a believer in the Evangelical doctrine of hell (I know that makes me a heretic, but my soul is at peace with it) that prescribes to people like Tarrance eternal unending conscious punishment because he refuses to say “the sinners prayer” (which he thinks makes him a Christian), or accept a foreign religion. But he’s cool with Jesus.
Does it make any sense to charge God with such a torturous future of Dante’s Inferno for someone who genuinely desires to worship God, in his context, with a knowledge of Christ, based on a doctrine with so much uncertainty as this issue presents historically? Does it make any sense to insist that Tarrance is going to burn forever in agony because he refuses to become what his experience and his peoples history tells him Christianity is? Would God really be glorified in that? Really? Is God’s justice served by such an act? To all of these questions I must answer no – Love Wins!
How arrogant are we to assume we understand fully the complexities of this issue? For instance, in all the debate I have not seen anyone (that I have read on this recent debate) refer to the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14), into which Death and Hades (hell in some translations) is thrown. Are they destroyed? Why, why not? Jesus talks about body and soul being destroyed (Matthew 10:38). So if body and soul are destroyed how does it then continue to burn in eternal punishment? Paul talks about Death being destroyed (1 Cor 15:26). So if Death is destroyed in the Lake why does Hades continue? We argue about what Jesus said about Gehanna, while thinking He is referring to our concept of Hell, because that’s what we have been taught to believe. Are we so audacious as to say we understand fully the context into which Jesus was speaking 2000 years ago? I know, we need to rely solely on the Bible, right? Well are we sure that eternal means forever along some linear time line, or is it rendered in such a way as to mean unknowable and unquantifiable, since apart from our 4 dimensional universe time really has no meaning? And, if there is no time, there is either existence or non-existence. But what does that mean?
I have yet to read Bell’s new book but if this debate does anything hopefully it will get many more thinking, instead of just accepting. If you never find yourself questioning what other people are saying, then it might be that you simply aren’t thinking. To be a discerning thinker, your mind must be switched on. When it is perhaps we’ll stop reacting so negatively to what people are saying, especially when we disagree, and engage in a dialogue that will build up the Kingdom and glorify our great God and King. And, then maybe Tarrance will see a Christianity he can believe in, one that is kind and gentle, meek and humble, peace-making and loving. We can only hope and pray.
Kudos to Scot for presenting this issue with good balance. Shalom.
Brian #51-
“For instance, in all the debate I have not seen anyone (that I have read on this recent debate) refer to the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14), into which Death and Hades (hell in some translations) is thrown.”
I strongly recommend Ben Witherington’s posts (at “The Bible and Culture Blog”, found here at Patheos) on the topic, “Why Annihilationism is not Universalism”, and “The Case for Permanent Residence in Hell.” He talks about many of those issues that you raise in a very helpful manner.
Great to see the wide range of perspectives in the article…
In general though, this whole brouhaha just strikes me as saying that a particular cognitive conception and articulation of the mechanics of God’s judgement is now the litmus test for genuine Christian identity.
I thought Jesus said our missional credibility and Christian identity was rooted primarily in the love we show to each other.
Seems to me a lot of people are failing the standard set by Jesus just by the way they’ve reacted to this whole thing.
Give me a person being “wrong” on hell any day if that person is one who lives up to the actual explicit standard of Christ, from Christ’s own mouth. I mean, if I have to choose…and it seems that increasingly I might have to…
very very sad.
scot, thanks for posting the link to the mars hill faq about the book. i feel like i finally have some sense of what bell is saying in his book without actually having read it. i look forward to your discussing the real questions being raised in this book that many younger people are asking, namely “if they’ve never heard the gospel how can a good God send them to hell for all eternity”. imo, that question is just flawed and needs to be thoroughly deconstructed for its modern, western assumptions.
Here is an overview of Bell’s book “Love Wins” without commentary:http://bit.ly/iiRLyn
Overview of Love Wins by Rob Bell:
http://bit.ly/iiRLyn
Can’t wait for your review. Wondering if this 2nd chance after death thing would be considered orthodox or part of the orthodox conversation in the early church, and whether Bell’s argument for it is in context.
Also, I think even though this is Rob Bell’s “McLaren moment,’ Bell has much more of a following, so Bell’s teachings will stay popular or at least more people will defend him.
@Brian 51.:
How arrogant are we to assume we understand fully the complexities of this issue?… We argue about what Jesus said about Gehanna, while thinking He is referring to our concept of Hell, because that’s what we have been taught to believe. Are we so audacious as to say we understand fully the context into which Jesus was speaking 2000 years ago?
Read The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds by Alan E. Bernstein
http://www.amazon.com/Formation-Hell-Retribution-Ancient-Christian/dp/0801481317
It will give you some of the context and the complexities.
EricW, that’s the book.
I think there are mysteries about eternity and the nature of God and the nature of human beings and limitations in the portion of understanding and revelation that we have graciously been given, beyond which we cannot go.
I do agree discussions about issues and theology like this can be helpful, useful, and should occur from time to time. Humility should always rule in there discussions, because for us all. there is much more that we do not know and understand than there is of what we think we know and understand.
I think we also need to be careful of imagining and creating theology for God as we would like him to be, or want him to be. So much of what we may want God to be or for hell to be, or for human beings to be, is more strongly dictacted by our current cultural/historical mindset than we may realize.
I do not beleive in judgement or hell or suffering for however long it is or is not, because I want to, or like to. And I would be content with a theology where it all turns out good for everyone in the end somehow, even for Hitler and mass murderers, etc.
But if we do not respect and take seriously the limited revelation we have, both in scripture and in the natural world we live in, we are just, in the end, making it all up as we go as it most suits us at any given time. And that, in the end, is just meaningless and insignificant rabble.
The God who is loving and merciful and gracious and caring, allows for many unspeakable and horrific things of pain, suffering, violence, abuse, etc., to happen on a regular basis right in the here in now. It proves little, but it gives me pause regarding God and what he can and cannot allow in his creation, and in many ways these current historical events are far more troubling to me than what may or may not happen in hell.
I say to Bell and others, reconcile and answer what goes on right here and now, under the nose of God, and with that satisfactorly done, then tackle what may or may not go on in the next world.
It seems to me it is so much easier to create a theology to reconcile the nature of God with evil and sin and suffering and pain in the next world, than it is to do so regarding those things in this present world. If for no other reason, than no one can say that the horrible things which happen to now in the present order, creation, world age, etc., are not happening because Go and His character could not, would not allow them to. Because they do happen, and God can and does allow them to happen. And given that God can allow in the here and now, it at least informs the discussion (speculation) about what God may or may not be able to allow in the there and eternal.
Scot, I’m surprised to see you calling Mark Galli’s piece “a fine review.” There was more heat than light from that lightbulb this time. When Galli notes that “the powers of death and destruction have been defeated” is one of Bell’s main themes, does he not recognize that this is the Christus Victor model of the atonement? Therefore can Bell’s quote be summarized as “This of course is the classic exemplar model of atonement”? And why does he link to Mark Dever when he writes, “In fact, as we’ve argued in the pages of the magazine, there are strong reasons . . .”? J.I. Packer or John Stott maybe, but Mark Dever? And in that article Dever slams Joel Green, Scot McKnight, Hans Boersma, and Frank Thielman. Liberal theologians? The following question asked by Galli has an easy answer: “Why, for example, is blood atonement a time-bound explanation of the Cross, but the divinity of Christ is a deep mystery we shouldn’t shun?” Because theories of atonement and universalism/theodicy have not received the same kind of consensus as the divinity of Christ in Christian history. Sigh. I love Christianity Today but Galli got a bit excited on this one.
“Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess?”
My jaw dropped at the reality of this question
I am a Bethel Seminary student and graduated last May from Bethel University’s Christian Ministry program. In my undergraduate program we read Rob’s book, Velvet Elvis which was my first introduction to Rob bell. I have since visited Mars Hill Bible Church and seen Rob on his Drops Like Stars book tour in the Twin Cities and I have to admit that I am sympathetic to his positions.
I am struck that what he is raising questions about and what is apparently causing such consternation in so many is not new (as he himself has admitted) in the sense of the soteriological conversation – but new in the catapulting of the conversation into a more popular, albeit a marginalized audience.
I say that because I have been travelling and as I have travelled (been in Australia for the last two weeks and now in London) I have been looking for any commentary on Rob Bell and his book or even copies of his book in book stores I have passed by. Granted, his book may not have been released in the places I have been, haven’t checked on that. Also, I have not been exhaustive by any means in checking in book stores or media outlets – my explorations have been cursory at best. Still, I have to wonder how isolated a story is this; in particular to America and the Evangelical community?
And, if the answer is yes, that this is a very parochial story and brouhaha then how does that then compare to the global though regional gospel imperative?
Ben (#30), I think you’re right that Lewis is much more inclined than Bell to the idea that at some point (whether at death or at some time afterward–Lewis made clear that TGC was not talking about the details of the afterlife) one’s choices would become “fixed.” That would be one of my major points of disagreement with Bell as well. But I don’t think that touches Bell’s core contention. More directly relevant to that core contention is Lewis’s suggestion in the same book that the “action of pity” will always remain while the “passion of pity” does not, and that Jesus’ descent into Hell affects all human beings who have ever lived or will ever live, doing all that can be done to offer them mercy. I see that as essentially the point Bell is arguing, although much better articulated and lacking the sentimental fuzziness that plagues Bell.
I meant of course “TGD.”
And since other folks have linked to their reviews, I’ll do so too: http://stewedrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/03/ok-now-that-ive-actually-read-book.html
Kevin’s statements: “But hell is not forever. God will have his way. How can his good purposes fail? Every sinner will turn to God and realize he has already been reconciled to God, in this life or in the next. There will be no eternal conscious torment. God says no to injustice in the age to come, but he does not pour out wrath (we bring the temporary suffering upon ourselves), and he certainly does not punish for eternity.”
These leave me rather confused in context of Revelation 20… “tormented day and night for ever and ever.” appears in that section — so it’s hard to see the concept of “no eternal conscious torment” or the concept of “not punish for eternity”. The lake of fire describe in that chapter is the second death described that is the opposite contrast of the New Jerusalem.
Jesus describes a story of a man in hell in Luke 16… and Jesus’ story describes the man saying “I am in agony in this fire.” Jesus also describes a “chasm” between heaven and hell that does not allow people/souls to go between the two. In that context, I’m not sure how someone would be in hell, not be tormented, but suddenly change their mind and want to “upgrade” to heaven at their will.
I’m not certain that’s a theme here, but those Biblical contexts don’t seem to support that line of thinking when I read it. Maybe others…??
I have two concerns connected to this controversy:
1. “At the end of the day, it is far easier to hurt and even to destroy another human being whom one already believes is cursed by God. After all, the hurt done to them in this life is nothing compared to the suffering they will endure in the next life and, so the argument goes, reflects God’s ultimate will and may even cause them to repent of whatever sins they are supposedly guilty.”~~Rabbi Brad Hirschfield
As Christians, let us remember that we live in a post-Holocaust world.
2. I’m 100% committed to Jesus– loving him, following him, believing in him. Tragically, there are people that I also love who are not followers/believers/lovers of Jesus. I love the Lord and I love people (Jesus Creed, amen!)
Here, then, is my reality. If hell is real, and by grace I am saved while my loved ones are not, will I not be miserable in heaven? Where is there Gospel in this conversation for me?
The twists and turns of this conversation are leading me down a dark road of despair. If what the “Gospel coalition” allies say is true, what do you say to the seeds of depression that having been planted in me and that are growing by the moment?
@ 70, Timothy. Even if the gospel coalition says there’s an eternal hell and that people will be going there, God is the final judge. So I say take it up with God, when the times comes if your loved ones weren’t put into the book of life. Until then, we won’t know 100% certain of what happens even if we believe that those who fail to worship God will go to an eternal hell where they become not even human.
If what the gospel coaltion says is true and you’re convicted of that, all the more for your to show Christ to your loved ones here, but I wouldn’t judge where your loved ones will be going. Only God can judge that.
@ 70, Timothy and you’ll only know for sure when the times comes.
Is it only weird for me when I think that God can do whatever He wants because He’s God. I know Francis Chan thinks like that.. maybe it’s an Asian thing. (I’m Asian as well).
So if God does allow for an eternal hell for some or however many, then who am I to argue with him and say he’s not loving?
For example, Rob Bell speaks about a hell on earth… And so isn’t it just as cruel for God to be allowing this hell now to go on and on in this life time?
I guess it’s like the heart of Job.. may seem unfair, but then God steps in and says, be still and know I am God. His ways are higher.. not sure why God allowed the tsunami to happen in Japan.. but I believe God’s ways are higher who lives in a space and time not limited like our own.
RobS – I would caution you against using parable imagery to try to define the afterlife. What was Jesus’ intent with that story? It seems to me that Jesus is trying to disconnect temporal wealth from God’s favor among other things. The imagery seems to me more to tease out that than provide any insight into concrete reality.
Also note: That verse in Rev 20 is the judgment of Satan. The “They” mentioned in that passage would be Satan and the demonic host, not humanity.
@RobS, for the sake of clarification, the paragraph you attributed to Kevin (that is, “Kevin’s statements: . . .”) is actually a quote from Bell’s book with which Kevin (DeYoung) strongly disagrees, rightly so, in my opinion.
@Jeremy:
The portion of Revelation that is spoken about does start with Satan, the false prophet, the beast, etc; however, the letter continues with death and Hades being cast down into the lake of fire (which is the second death). How do you reconcile the very next part of the letter that reads, “If anyone’s name is not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the fire?”
Also, while I agree parable imagery isn’t always suitable, we do find numerous parables that include this idea of Gehenna (such as the Parable of the Wedding Banquet), which agree with what John writes at the end of Revelation. Before seeing New Jerusalem come down, we read the “overcomers” will inherit but the cowardly, unbelieving, murderers, sorcerors, etc will be in the fire that is the second death.
Again, this portion seems relatively clear.
Of course, I trust 100% in Jesus as Judge.
Also, I grieve deeply the Gehenna on earth that so many experience right now, including in some measure all of us.
Finally, it is difficult for me to accept the “Gospel Coalition” teaching because I understand Christ to be the One who meets us in Gehenna to restore us. Struggling sinner that I am, I have gone to meet people in their “hell” out of Christ’s kindness. Sometimes they come out, sometimes they remain, I cannot give up. Love, according to Paul, never ends and never gives up.
Is there anything that would or could cause Eugene Peterson to say, “This person has taught something that opposes Biblical truth, and the church should consider him a heretic”? To me, his call for restraint makes about as much sense as someone who applauds an arsonist for lighting a fire, and then, when the firemen arrive and begin to fight the fire, says, “Gently, gently!”
I’ve been re-examining “The Message” and its treatment of passages about hell — and it is notable how many references to hell have been altered in “The Message.” Example: John the Baptist’s statement, “He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” in Matthew 3:12 has become, in “The Message,” “everything false he’ll put out with the trash to be burned.” Somewhere in Peterson’s “translation of tone,” the Greek word ASBESTW was completely unrepresented. I do not believe at all that this failure to translate ASBESTW was accidental; nor do I believe that the other shortcomings of The Message, in its references to hell (for instance, in Psalm 66:10-12 and Matthew 16:18), are accidental. Considering the liberties that Eugene Peterson took in “The Message,” his endorsement of “Love Wins” is not surprising. The way doctrines are subtly blurred in “The Message” in the name of colloquialism is a real concern. There ought to be a real rethink about “The Message.”
Or to put it another way: can anyone think of any occasion on which Eugene Peterson has stood up and clearly enunciated a belief in an eternal hell, eternally inhabited by lost souls?
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Having heard the Newsweek interview with Rob Bell I found his answers very open ended. My main question is not about hell but about the crucifixion and the need for it if Love Wins in a universal fashion.
I am just wondering if the whole sacrifice thing was necessary to pay the price as it were for a God who’s wrath seems unquenchable in the Old Testament. Either there is a price for our sinfullness or it doesn’t matter in a universal acceptance world. What is it? As Rob explained in his interview to him both are possible but our western minds find that hard to believe.
Too bad Bell wasn’t around a hundred years ago. He could have saved Billy Graham a lot of time. Why bother with evangelism? According to Bell it is irrelevant