I will begin this series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, with a prayer. I am asking that you pause quietly and slow down enough to pray this prayer as the way to approach this entire series:
O Lord, you have taught us that without love whatever we do is worth nothing:
Send your Holy Spirit and pour into my heart your greatest gift,
which is love, the true bond of peace and of all virtue,
without which whoever lives is accounted dead before you.
Grant this for the sake of your only Son Jesus Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God,
now and for ever. Amen.†
Our goal is not to win; our goal is not to classify Rob Bell; our goal is not see who is the most faithful; our goal is not to say who has the best review; our goal is not to debate other reviews. Our goal is to explore together the Bible’s teaching and the themes of this book by using Rob Bell’s book — and as we explore these themes to come to reasonable conclusions about what we are to believe. [If you'd like to spread the word about this conversation, please tweet it or FB share it above.]
Universalism and pluralism are perhaps the biggest challenges to the church’s traditional theology today. I did not say universalism and pluralism are “threats,” though one could say it that way. I say “challenges” because I am convinced many in our churches are at the least easy-going inclusivists and many are somehow confident universalists (or almost that). If you are not hearing this issue in your church it is probably because the environment is not safe enough to probe the question in public. Rob Bell is hearing this message loud and clear. I’m glad he’s provoking people to think about it.
We will meet this challenge to the historic, orthodox belief of the church, not by pounding the pulpit of exclusivism, which will confirm the convinced but mute the voices of those who really do have questions. We can rise to the challenge by entering into the reality of the problems and by proposing fresh, creative, biblical and theological resolutions that compel the church to think clearly about the magnitude of its claims — that salvation is found in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ alone. What C.S. Lewis did in his generation with The Problem of Pain, and then later with A Grief Observed, as well as with The Great Divorce, needs to be done in our generation. I’m neither suggesting that Rob Bell is on par with Lewis nor that Love Wins is that book. What I am saying is that the issues emerging from this universalistic challenge to the church are vital because there is no book that meets the challenge. Love Wins puts the question on the table.
Are you willing to open up to the questions he will ask in this book? Are his questions, some of them that broach universalism and second chances and God’s expansive love, viable and safe in your church?
This series will explore what Rob Bell says in his book, and it will riff off of what Rob says. Don’t expect blow by blow arguments. In some ways I want to take up the challenge myself. In other cases I will probe into Rob’s arguments and disagree with them. Sometimes I will agree with him.
First, Rob Bell says Jesus’s story “is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us” (vii). This God-loves-us story has been hijacked, he says, by a “growing number of us” and he says there are “millions of us.” The hijacked version of the story is that a “select few Christians will spend forever in … heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better” (viii). This hijacked story says it is a “central truth” and Bell says this story is “misguided and toxic.”
Serious questions: In your church’s teaching, will be most people be saved? many? some? few? Is your church one in which most or some or few will be saved? Or is your church one that is agnostic about this question? These are the questions that haunt this book and these are the questions that many are asking, or want to ask but are afraid to ask. I am asking you to weigh in on this one.
I can put it this way: In light of how the gospel is preached in your church, and assuming 95% [I don't of course know but let's say that number is right] North Koreans have never heard the gospel, what percent of North Koreans will spend forever with God? Maybe this kind of question makes you feel uncomfortable, but it’s one we have to face. That is one of the deepest concerns in Rob Bell’s book. It’s time to be honest about what we think. The gospel claim is that salvation is found in Christ alone (Acts 4:12). What about those who have not heard? Where do you stand?
Do you ever ask what kind of image of God is conveyed if most humans will be excluded from the good presence of God?
Second, Rob says lots of people have questions about the Jesus-ness [my word] of this hijacked story. And they want to come to Jesus and to the Bible and to the Christian tradition and ask questions about that hijacked story. “There is no question,” Rob claims, “that Jesus cannot handle, no discussion too volatile, no issue too dangerous” (x).
Third, in order to be complete in my sketch, Rob says what he teaches in this book … that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me” and he connects his own approach as part of “the historic, orthodox Christian faith.”
I’ve got questions here because I don’t know who is defining “orthodox” … there’s an entire history about the questions about the afterlife — who will be there, how to get in and what keeps you out — that involves complex theological problems and to say what Rob says requires some careful nuancing of that history and those issues. But notice his words: “taught, suggested, or celebrated.” That word “suggested” is loose enough that I’d say what he teaches in this book has been suggested, but that’s not the same as the “historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Suggestions and faith are not the same.
For other posts, see Tony Jones, Greg Boyd.
Jeff Cook compares Rob Bell with C.S. Lewis.
Early Rob Bell reviews.
As we comment,
let us love God 100%–
with heart, mind, soul, and strength–
and love Rob and Scot
and other reviewers
and other commentators
and other believers
and any non-believers
in the same way we love ourselves.
I will be listening to this conversation as one who has loved ones who do not believe and are not likely to believe any time soon– or ever. As the conversation unfolds, I’m wondering whether I will have hope or despair. Will I experience more hurt over the situation or healing? Will I be lifted up or devastated? Will love reach me, one who treasures Christ more than all?
to be honest having observed the reaction to Bell’s book whatever his theological conclusion I think a bigger problem is whether some of those who claim to speak in Jesus’ name are saved than whether some of those who have never heard Jesus’ name are saved
A good beginning. Excellent point that it really is time to pull these questions out of the closet. One member of my church fears that Rob Bell’s book will soften the urgency for evangelism, but you have reminded me that it’s because we AREN’T reaching out already that we can keep these questions about hell safely under the rug.
I am looking forward to observing a discussion here that is both ‘safe’ and yet grounded in a solid foundation. It’s not easy to achieve such a balance.
I’m a bit troubled about a conversation focussed on the “orthodox” position of the church. What constitutes the “official” orthodox position of the “Church”? The level of disagreement about that persuades me that there is not a “conciliar orthodox” position about eschatological questions beyond the creedal statements.
Are we to assume that the term “orthodox” can be attached or applied to the broad consensus or generally accepted way of thinking throughout church history? By that measure, Martin Luther was NOT orthodox. To take that approach toward a “Rob Bell” is to repeat a sad and divisive period of church history. What would Paul think of that when we read 1 Corinthians. Is Christ divided?
And what about pacificism? We will not find a general consensus or agreement in accord with pacifism throughout church history after the first three centuries when Christians were not politically able to exercise military might in the name of Christ. So orthodoxy is appears to be as orthodoxy does. Just because a position differs from the mainstream does not make it “unorthodox”.
This is obviously where the crux of the conversation lies. What and how important is “orthodoxy”? Does “orthodoxy” allow us to enter into the heart of God? Perhaps we could center our conversation on Christ himself and the Father that he represents rather than on orthodoxy? The “Body of Christ” is dividing over this issue primarily because we have replaced the “Body of Christ” with a “body of orthodoxy.” To proclaim Christ as Lord brings one into His Body. Has Rob Bell not done this?
As I grow older I’m still convinced that humanity is saved only by the person and work of Jesus Christ. I’m less sure, though, of how this salvation works its way out into the world. The Orthodox have a saying that they know where the Church is but they do not say where the Church is not. Of course this is just agnosticism concerning the application of salvation found in Jesus, though I think some caution is necessary when we try to expound the ‘how’ of Christ’s redemption for humanity.
I really appreciate the manner in which you (and hopefully “we”) are approaching this conversation. You make an important distinction between “threat” and “challenge”. As a pastor in Western MI (of a young congregation) the questions Rob Bell raises in the book are on par with the questions and curiosities people have. Allowing these questions to be heard gives value to those who are asking; and when we value people, we find that they are asking deeper questions than merely “Do all get saved?”, they are asking, seeking, and exploring the nature of God. Essentially, these questions show a real desire to know God…how wonderful! This search should be welcomed, affirmed, and nurtured. We need to be careful with our labels that so easily dismiss people, their thoughts, and their insights. When we do so, we inadvertently squelch their pursuit. Grace and peace.
To answer Scot’s questions:
Yes, I am will to talk about the questions Rob raises.
As to “how many will be saved?”- our congregation would fall into the “agnostic” category. That being said, folks in thew pews demonstrate the full range of options from “few” to “all”
Yes, I am thinking about the character of God all the time. How is God’s goodness seen in our world right now? In heaven? In hell? In tragedy? In joy?
In terms of God’s character: Does law win? Does justice win? Does holiness win? Does grace win? Does love win? And, what do we mean by “saved”? What are we saved FROM and what are we saved TO and what are we saved FOR?
As I have experienced these online conversations, why do people have to question or rule on the matter of whether I am saved or not? Why are their opinions so definite?
I think my default tendency is to preach in the spirit of Love Wins, by which I mean I don’t tend to use the afterlife as a motivation (positive or negative), but instead I invite people to join in bringing about the Kingdom of God as Jesus defines it. That’s not necessarily because I believe the soteriology that Bell presents in his book; it’s more because I think there is plenty in the gospel to inspire people without the “carrot” or the “stick.”
As a pastor, one of my mottos is “I’m not here to give you all the answers but to help you ask the right questions.” As such, I deeply appreciate Bell’s approach. (Count the question marks in chapter one.) I think the approach gets him in almost as much trouble with certain sectors of the church as the content itself.
Scot, your questions above are terrifying, to be honest. They rouse us from a slumber we are in, and they are necessary. I am looking forward to following this series.
I am a self-classified Inclusivist (which I think needs a better label), believing that while nobody is saved apart from the work of Jesus Christ, it is not necessary for people to “kneel down at the altar with Deacon Bob and say the sinner’s prayer” in order to come to salvation. Thus, I agree with CSL (and others) who think that it is a matter of responding to truth over responding to a singular understanding of “Jesus.”
The apostle Paul says that people are “without excuse” because they should have responded to A-B-C knowledge about the creator (Romans 1:20). So, what if one DOES respond to A-B-C knowledge about the creator. We should remember that A-B-C knowledge does not include Torah or Gospel.
@ Timothy. If you view them as opinions, why would you be hurt by them?
Over here in the UK the same issues are very pressing. Some very brief comments while I await part 2. I think these questions need much wider and deeper discussion and teaching on at all levels of the church. Having read Rob’s book I have to say that I think it is an unhelpful way of doing so because it is very fierce in it’s condemnation of the traditional position and because his alternative proposal is, I think, a very weak one. John Stott, a model of loving and serious evangelical study, teaching and debate, tackled all the questions raised by Rob Bell in the book ‘Essentials’ (1988) where he was put on the spot by his liberal co-author David Edwards. His answers, which included a tentative belief in annihalationism, and a theologically sound way of showing how there may be hope for those who’ve never heard (anyone from general revelation can call out to God ‘God, have mercy on me a sinner) are, I would suggest, much more biblical ways of trying to answer these crucial questions in a grace filled way. Stott also had a very different tone – much more loving and gentle, than Rob has in his book. Maybe this section of ‘Essentials’ should be reprinted as a booklet! (It is pages 312-329 for any who have it on their shelves) The publication of this book caused a lot of debate but I’m not aware of Stott ever withdrawing his views. Finally, I’m also interested to note that even Mark Driscoll provides some basis of hope for those who’ve never heard in his book ‘Doctrine’ the relevant pages of which have been put up on his blog page at Resurgence. I quote ‘But there are many ways to Jesus. While the norm is responding to the preached Word of God, there are biblical examples as well as life experiences where God gives special revelation of the Messiah to unsaved people in other forms, including direct speech, dreams, and visions. God called Abraham directly. He gave Pharaoh dreams. He spoke to the treacherous prophet Balaam in a vision so that he prophesied about the Messiah. He appeared to Cornelius in a vision, which resulted in him being saved. There are many such stories. The reality is that anyone who is searching and willing to respond to the goodness of God as Cornelius did will receive special revelation. God is perfectly able to bypass the “normal” channels to accomplish his purposes.’ It will be interesting to see if he sticks by this as the debate unfolds. He preached on hell last Sunday and although he was very strong in that talk he didn’t retract this as far as I could see, although he didn’t give it as much ‘air time’ or emphasis.
I hope I am not jumping ahead, but I buy into the concept that people can meet Jesus without hearing the name Jesus and the book, the bible. People without the law can be a law unto themselves. Jesus is not the name or the stories in the book, but the path, the way.
I look forward to this series.
Oh, and the questions were absolutely not safe in my last church. The pastor said we were an open and honest church that accepted people, but as soon as I started actually asking the tough questions they kicked me out. All they wanted was MTD.
I think I am one of those who wants some answers to these questions. I want to know what Jesus really did mean.
I’m looking forward to the discussion and the insights.
In my church, we’re agnostic about the %’s in heaven and hell. So, what happens with the millions of Muslims who reject Christ as Lord and Savior, we simply say God will judge but yet still preach that Christ is still the only way to an after-life heaven.
The debate’s been making me wonder why the belief that other people go to hell is so cherished by so many of us Christians? Who are we?
The Bible is too accessible to too many people to remain unequivocally attahced to the coercive theologies of our past. We’re going to have to loosen up on what we’ve been led to believe in order to tighten down on what the Bible says.
(If you’re thinking of particular verses to prooftext and shoot back to make your point about what the whole Bible says, I’m talking about you).
“If you are not hearing this issue in your church it is probably because the environment is not safe enough to probe the question in public. Rob Bell is hearing this message loud and clear. I’m glad he’s provoking people to think about it.”
In Bible College, I was instructed to provide only answers. In Seminary, I was instructed to only ask questions. Over the element of time, I have learned to seek the lofty essence of God’s truth and have discovered in this continual journey that there are both questions and answers that provoke humility and a very deep trust in only knowing in part until I know as I am fully known.
To answer the question, my tribe assumes that “some” will be saved. However, we don’t allow ourselves to think much about the implications of that– both in human toll and in regards to God’s morality.
I believe that Jesus is the True Light who gives light to everyone who comes into the world (John 1:8-9). John presents this in the context of Jesus as Logos, through who all things were made ~ IOW, a creation context, as well as in the context of the Incarnation. So I believe this light has been accessible to all, even to those who lived before the Incarnation, and also to those whom the preaching of the gospel has never reached. I believe that everyone is accountable for whatever light they have been given by God. I believe that the Light that is accessible to all is also sufficient for the salvation of all who respond to it in faith. I do not believe that God will hold anyone accountable for more light than He has given them. I also believe that those who die in infancy, for whom hearing and believing the preaching of the gospel is not a possibility, are nonetheless saved.
Christopher Morgan, professor of theology at California Baptist University, in answer to the question, “What About Those Who Haven’t Heard?” gives what seems to me to be a pretty good breakdown of the range of answers that have been offered. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/03/19/what-about-those-who-havent-heard/
I find myself somewhere around number 4, “Agnosticism (as to the fate of the unevangelized).” Not the “pessimistic agnosticism” of J. I. Packer but more like the “optimistic agnosticism” a la John Stott. I do not go so far as number 5, “General Revelation Inclusivism,” because I think of the “True Light who gives light to everyone who comes into world” more a matter of divine, prevenient grace than of “general revelation.”
The Bible college I went to was a pretty conservative school. The answer I was given, in answer to the question, “What about those who have never heard?” was Jeremiah 29:13, “And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.” In context, it is actually talking about wayward Israel, but we took it as a truth applicable to the whole world. And we left the answer there, without too much fine-tuning. God has given everyone enough to go on, and if we will pursue that, He will get us where we need to be.
As a Christian, I am authorized to preach assurance of salvation to those who confess King Jesus the Messiah and believe that God has raised Him from the dead.
On Scot’s question of what churches teach on how many will be saved: I’m no expert on historial Reformed theology and so found what St Andrew’s University lecturer Steve Holmes (who is) said on this fascinating.
http://faithinireland.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/for-whom-the-bell-tolls/
Bell (with no obvious awareness or acknowledgement) is reflecting a long tradition within Reformed orthodoxy on the generous graciousness of God in salvation – serious people like Hodge and Warfield and Shedd.
Namely that on the relative proportion of the saved to the lost, if God is truly a God of grace, then he will save generously.
This is not of course to say that much of what Bell says is also in line with reformed orthodoxy! But there is an alignment on this specific point
Quite a bit of irony here in that his fiercest detractors are defenders of reformed orthodoxy and Bell is proposing a strongly Arminian view of human freedom. But that’s another conversation.
With all the questions that Rob raises in LW, I think the central question behind all the questions is, “Does the gospel offer any hope for those who don’t believe?” In other words, if someone comes to you and says, “My grandpa died and he never gave any indication that he cared much about Jesus. Does the Christian faith have any hope for him?” I gotta say, if the gospel doesn’t have some hope for grandpa, I have a hard time calling it good news.
As for my practice, I’m with SJA #10.
Finally, I’m concerned that many are reading this book as you would read a position paper or ordination paper rather than a book exploring the edges and mystery of our faith and the afterlife. Thus pronouncements about Bell’s orthodoxy seem out of place in the discussion. The question is more, “Can we even have this discussion?” Many in the body of Christ have answered quite forcefully and their answer is “no”. That saddens me. I’m thankful that we can have the discussion here.
Honestly, I don’t like the way the questions are being framed. Framing the question in terms of “the church’s traditional theology” is not entirely helpful, IMHO, particularly from a protestant evangelical perspective. No protestant evangelical agrees fully with “the church’s traditional theology” — in fact, we “protest” against much of it. The “church’s traditional theology” includes the priority of Rome and the saving efficacy of baptism and the eucharist, sometimes explicitly but at least implicity, from the early councils onward. The Reformation was a radical break with the “church’s traditional theology.”
Further, to speak in terms of “tradition” without including the “liberal” theological revolution of the 19th century as well as the varied responses thereto — Barth not the least among them — is a pinched perspective on “tradition.” If, as evangelical protestants have asserted, “tradition” is a living thing, then why are the questions about pluralism that have been asked and theological responses that have been formulated in the various branches of Christianity since the 19th Century not also part of the “tradition” that must be considered?
It is correct to suggest that the mainstream of the Christian tradition particularly from around the fourth century until the 19th century, including some creedal and conciliar documents, asserts a restrictist, dual-outcome eschatology. But if the experiences, Biblical scholarship, and theological reflection of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries must be discounted in some sense in favor of the Conciliar and Scholastic periods, then some theological basis for this method must be asserted or assumed. It seems to me that evangelical protestantism lacks any resources for making any such move.
None of this is to say that “easy-going inclusivism” (whatever the pejorative “easy-going” is supposed to mean) or a radical pluralism are theologically viable or true approaches, but the criteria for making this judgment need to be made clear, beyond just a reference to “traditional theology.” Otherwise, no matter how heartfelt and valuable the exhortation to be generous in our speech with each other might be, there will be no genuine basis for common fellowship around what might represent “reasonable conclusions” about what we should believe.
My church’s teaching could only be classified as “few”, although I’m clearly not in line with what my church teaches and am to a certain degree willing to talk about it. When I’ve made overtures to thinking that God’s grace may be more amazing than what I’ve been taught it has been greeted with responses that indicate my thinking is wrong/dangerous/heretical. To that degree I would say it is really not safe to discuss. I think Rob Bell’s book is making it a little safer. We’ll see.
As for the N. Korean question, my pastor once made a statement from the pulpit of “I don’t know”, but when the doctrine statement says “Unbelievers are resurrected to experience judgment and then eternal suffering apart from God” I don’t get what’s ambiguous about the N. Korean question.
Eschatology is clearly an issue for me in the church I’m in. We’ve spent the last two weeks discussing the rapture. Yes, really.
I am, too, thankful we can have a place to set Rob’s questions on the table (safely) and explore them without fear. With a fairly conservative background that believes in conscious eternal torment for the unsaved, I and many other pastors did not “preach” that doctrine well. We admittedly skirted the hell issue publicly. I think Rob is asking all of us who did that “Why don’t you come out and admit what your “orthodoxy” actually contends—billions will be in hell and are accountable to God for not believing in Jesus, a Jesus they never heard about”? I like Patrick Mitchel’s observation (comment #22).
Thank you Scot for reviewing Bell and approaching these issues… I have found you often do so with grace and clarity. Looking forward to more.
I agree that these “challenges” are some of the big ones I hear both in and out of the church. We need more spaces where it is OK to discuss them.
As to your question… I think where I serve and teach we are agnostic on the ‘how many’ question. But I do hear people struggle with some serious questions about the character of a God who would create humans only later to cast the majority of them away from his presence.
I need to amend comment #25–it should read “billions are in hell *for their sins*” not for not believing in Jesus. The only way out of their sins would be to believe in Jesus…of whom they never heard.
I attend a conservative, Reformed church and I would say it is not a very safe place to ask tough questions like this. I am glad to have a sort of blog community in which to explore them myself.
My experience is that most in my camp see Jesus as the only way necessitating the majority of people being in a tormenting hell because they have never heard. The Romans 10 “How will they hear unless someone preaches” lines are used. It is not discussed often and people don’t like it very much.
I have also heard many have hope that heaven will still have lots of people because all the infants will be saved.
“Suggestions and faith are not the same.” While I fully agree with this statement I think it is very important that many articles of our faith were at one point and time a thought or suggestion. If Luther and many others did not bring forward their suggestions to bring greater light to our faith we would be still practicing and believing certain things. Even while I want to hold onto an ‘orthodox’ faith, I have become increasingly suspicious of anyone who says they can define what exactly that is outside the apostles creed. ‘Orthodoxy’ seems to have become more about fear than anything else; fear of going outside or violating the faith-who wants to do that? Scot I know that you are not painting it this way. I am just curious to see how Rob’s ‘suggestions’ may not be within the ‘wide stream of orthodoxy’.
even though i have seen some reviews ‘bashing’ Rob Bell, i have also seen others that simply review the book and discuss Rob Bell’s thinking and perspective and arrive disagreeing with him. the thing that concerns me a bit about all of this is not really the reaction to Rob Bell, but the reactions to the reaction to Rob Bell! so many people are all for being ‘peaceful and loving’, but this seems mostly to mean that we shouldn’t disagree or say he is or might be wrong. being a parent, i can safely say that telling someone they’re wrong and loving them are not mutually exclusive! my two year old already understands that i love him very much even when he says a word incorrectly or mislabels something. is he less wrong about the crocodile being a frog? no. but i love him the same.
so with that being said, and after reading Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins”, i think i can safely, lovingly, peacefully say it is a horribly written book with vague reference and quotes and lands on not only a not Biblical premise, but even an anti-Biblical one. To ‘quote’ other church leaders and founders and simply say that they “agree” with you without giving in what regard is wreckless and poor writing. To use Bible passages out of context (… and Rob Bell is not the only one who does this too often) is dangerous and often leads to conclusions that have nothing to do with the passages used. and finally, when combining the book with his interviews, much of the controversy could be avoided if he’d stop dodging questions and be clear about his thoughts, beliefs, and intentions. Motive is important; and Rob Bell is playing hard to get with his.
As a Christian I believe that God’s capacity for love and mercy exceed my own. In fact I believe they exceed my own capacity to imagine.
So, when I here the quote: “No greater love…” recently I have been forced to ask myself whether, if granted eternal life with God, I would be willing to lay down that eternal life for a devout and loving Muslim or Hindu, or merely for the reprobate who lives next door?
Or would I be willing to lay down my eternal life, would I be willing to give up my place in line at the heavenly gates, for one whom I love dearly but who has failed to love God as they should? And my answer is yes, I can imagine myself in certain circumstances doing that. Then, if my capacity for love and mercy extend so far, does not God’s? And farther yet?
Rob Bell is not the issue. He is just a man who articulated an already present challenge. The challenge has always been out there and has been ignored or suppressed for too long. The source of the challenge is not Rob Bell, but the limitations on the human capacity for compassion, and the limitations on the human imagination with respect the limits of divine grace, mercy, patience and forgiveness.
To Dennis @#4
As for your church members concern about the risk of “softening the urgency for evangelism,” perhaps the problem is not with the urgency but the object of evangelism. I believe that as Christians we are not called to solicit members to join the ‘I’m going to heaven’ club. We are called to invite people into the Kingdom here on earth, into a life of Kingdom living. And we do that not by dangling eternal rewards we cannot promise or punishments we can neither promise or prevent. We do that by teaching about the beauty and fulfillment of leading a life focused on grace-filled living.
IMHO giving up both the illusory carrot of Heaven and the terrifying whip of Hell in favor of the immediacy of the message of the grace of Kingdom living should be the focus of our evangelism.
Scot, I think your investigation into whose definition of orthodox is a good place to start, and I recently came across this article by Timothy Beal that asks the same questions about the definition of biblical:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/22/my-take-there%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-the-bible/
I fear we are in too murky a mess of definitions of biblical and orthodoxy to really come to a conclusion that even satisfies the 80/20 rule.
This might be jumping the gun a little, but one question I’ve asked myself again and again is whether I would follow Jesus if there were no heaven? I believe we should all be able to say Yes, or at least ‘I hope so’, to this question before we ever try to evangelize. Even if I would believe there is nothing after this earthly life, I still want to invite others into the community of God’s love.
Wow, nate, a little patronizing are we? Comparing those who agree w/Rob Bell to two year olds who need the parental wisdom of someone like nate to be corrected?
I think to be fair to Rob Bell, it should be noted that he affirms that salvation is found only in Christ, he calls into question the idea that salvation is found only in the knowledge of Christ.
On the question of whether or not it is safe to ask these kinds of questions in my church, it definitely is. I would guess that the majority of the congregation are more comfortable with some kind of universalism, or at least second chances after death, than they would be with the traditional view of eternal conscience torment in hell. In fact I would guess that someone who dogmatically stated the traditional view as the only acceptable Christian view might be made to feel a little uncomfortable.
@Nate: much of the controversy could be avoided if he’d stop dodging questions and be clear about his thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.
Maybe part of Bell’s message is that he wants to avoid unwarranted dogmatism? This is something that most of us, myself included, would do well to heed.
I would be in the exclusivist camp, but I am an annhilationist.
Every day, we see that “the wages of sin is death,” and “if you live according to the flesh you will die.” Rarely do people question the justice of God when people die. Death is tragic, sure, but not unjust.
I echo Bell’s questions about God’s justice in eternal conscious torment, but I don’t see the problems in annihilation. The second death is, well, a second “death”–tragic, but not unjust. It’s only by God’s grace is anyone is rescued from the natural consequences of sin.
What about the 95% that haven’t heard? Tragic. Hopefully tragic enough to get us out into the world.
One of the problems I think we have is that hell is a theology of the oppressed. When you live your life in daily oppression, and the powers of the world never see justice for the evils they commit against you, you start to long for God to make things right. But when you live your life in relative luxury, and you can’t see much a difference between your life and that of your unbelieving neighbor, hell starts to sound a little unfair.
The one lingering question I have about hell is the issue of God’s wrath. I am far more comfortable talking about God rescuing us from the natural consequences of sin (death) than I am talking about Jesus rescuing us from God’s wrath. But we see in the Bible that God’s wrath is at least part of the equation.
Scot, Why did you file this under universalism? I’m only half way through the book but I haven’t heard anything universalistic yet.
I don’t recall any teaching about the population of Heaven or Hell in my church. I know that people come to my congregation from various faith backgrounds and are allowed to hold various beliefs.
My congregation may not be a safe place to have this discussion, but I still think it is a safe place to grow in your love for God and others. And I think there is a difference.
I’m interested in how this book will affect behavior. If one buys wholeheartedly into what Rob Bell proposes, I don’t think their behavior would be affected adversely. I think they would relentlessly and lovingly pursue relationships. Regardless of the minor issues I have with the book, I think it will net a positive result.
Kenton @35, while of course awaiting Scot’s fine analysis, I am looking forward to seeing how soon I can become offended that someone uses the wrong words when disagreeing or agreeing with the book and/or review. I am already in “pre-offended mode” that a two-year old has been referenced as having something to do with a position. I’ll wait till later to see if I need to go full-on offended.
The one thing I think we can all agree on is the inevitability of hurt feelings.
Scot…thanks for leading this conversation!
I am willing to have this discussion, and I agree with several other comments that the tone already displayed by the Christian community is as troublesome to me as Bell’s book.
I have preferred to leave open the possibility of annihilation alongside eternal torment in a formal statement of faith. I think that arguments can be made for both sides.
I also agree with John Frye’s comment (#28) that the problem is sin and brokenness. This is what separates us from our originally created goodness in relationship with God, Self, Others and the World. As I read Scripture, this is what separates us from God in the present and in our eternal future. If this is universally true – that all of us are dead in our sins / slaves to sin – then this is our qualification for judgment and Hell. It appears to me that some of our thoughts would lead us to think that we are all ‘qualified’ for eternal bliss with God, but because of Jesus’ claim of exclusivity the whole thing is messed up and some will unnecessarily be detoured to Hell unfairly.
The question of ‘orthodoxy’ is relevant I think. While Church history is speckled with arbitrary decisions for political gains, the Councils sought to come to a common understanding of Biblical teaching. If we fall prey to the notion that we have to trade in ‘orthodoxy’ for ‘freedom of thought’ then we also discard the working of the Spirit over many generations. Who is to say that our current redefinition of ‘orthodoxy’ is correct?
I’m looking forward to this continued conversation!
As the pastor of our church, I’m encouraging people to buy the book and read it. And then have thoughtful, informed discussions about it. To set the stage for that, I’m starting a Bible study on Hell: sheol, gehenna, hades, and Tartarus. I’m sure that will lead to a study on eternal rewards, eternal punishments, everlasting and “unto the ages”. And then that may lead to a Bible study on Jesus and atonement and sanctification and gospel. What fun!
Our church has a mix of very theologically informed people and those (mostly) with a vague sense of what they believe. We have a real opportunity here to probe the Scriptures and help Christians own their faith – not just “believe” what they’ve pieced together over the years.
Taylor G, I put it in that category because Bell’s book moves in and out of that question/topic. The legacy of this book will be discussions about how many will be saved and who will be saved and whether or not all be saved and will we have a second chance.
Scot… I just want to say thanks for hosting this conversation and modeling what it should look like! Once again, I am thankful for your leadership and wisdom.
I would say that my tribe lies somewhere between “some” and “agnostic” concerning how many will be saved.
The issue of “what about those who have not heard?” is gigantic, especially with youth and “hurt by the people in the church” adults. Healing needs to happen here and if these questions are not safe, it will not happen. I think that is part of Bell’s MO here. He wants to reach these kinds of people and believes we won’t until we open the gates on these questions.
Orthodoxy is a gigantic concern of mine right now. It is interesting that people want to label Bell a mainline protestant? Rob Bell has never known anything of mainline protestantism. He was raised in a non-denom evang. church, went to Wheaton and Fuller. You can’t exorcise that from him? I have been watching Roger Olsen attempt to defend this territory, but I am afraid there is a major power play afoot for who gets to define evangelicalism and orthodoxy in the 21st century. Interesting, Olsen always claims people like McLaren et al are evangelicals, because they want to be evangelicals. You get to self-define. But it turns into “Yes I am.” “No your not.” (Silly) Olsen is starting to think some will stop self-defining as evangelicals soon.
I think this issue is about essentials and non-essentials. Is the doctrine of hell an essential? Or can there be room for variance within orthodoxy? I feel like this is not getting enough airtime, because guys like CS Lewis and John Stott have obviously held different positions than the “traditional” position and that appears to be what Bell is pointing out. If so, this is something we can explore.
I’m really looking forward to this series. I’d love to hear your thoughts and questions regarding Love Wins.
Third, in order to be complete in my sketch, Rob says what he teaches in this book … that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me” and he connects his own approach as part of “the historic, orthodox Christian faith.”
Two thoughts:
1) I think it’s safe to assume that Bell has a fairly expansive view of “orthodoxy” here. That’s not to say that I think he’s right or wrong, per se. Simply that he seems to have a fairly focused view of what doctrines are “essential” for “orthodoxy” while most doctrines would fit into a category of “adiaphora.” (I found a discussion on this blog particularly intriguing if you want to see more on this discussion.)
2) I’ve seen more than a few people accuse Bell (and others) of “arrogance” for daring to suggest doctrines different from (and I’m paraphrasing the concept here) “what the consensus of the church has been settled on for 2000 years.” While I would certainly agree that a “universalist” stance has not been mainstream Christian doctrine, that fact is insufficient to toss the idea out if/when it is brought up. It may well be reason enough to treat such a concept with deep suspicion, but it is simply unfair to assume that a doctrine cannot be true if it is new. If no new doctrines could be considered, the Reformation could never (or at least, should never) have taken place. (I find it ironic that this concept comes up most often from Protestants)
Scot, thank you for what you do.
And, I don’t know if you have an opinion or control over this, but I miss being able to read your entire blog in my google reader. I can (since Patheos) only read a section, then I have to re-open it in a new tab. No big deal, just wanted to alert you if someone else had not.
Thank you again for being such a clear, God-honoring voice in a very troublesome internet and age!
Excited to finally see Scot and the Jesus Creed community having these discussions. I’ve been waiting for reasoned and discerning discussions since all the hoopla began.
Unless there is more work performed in understanding the biblical definition of “Hell” [Gehenna] accurately, then we may actually be working something of a straw man issue here. Eternal Conscience torment as imaged by Dante’s inferno is highly unlikely to represent the concept of NT thinking.
A good place to start is with Edward Fudge’s book “The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment”
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-That-Consumes-Historical-Punishment/dp/0595143423
With a more nuanced understanding of the biblical terminology then folks can proceed more accurately to discern these issues.
Scot … my Ditto joins those who are grateful for your initiative and intentions.
For any of you who need a little comic relief, check out Donald Miller’s review here: http://donmilleris.com/2011/04/01/my-review-of-love-wins/
Peace
Fascinating conversation, gentlemen. I look forward to reading more as the conversation continues.
I lean towards John Mc’s and Tim’s comments (33 and 34) regarding getting rid of the carrot and stick. Moreover, I agree with statements that this whole topic topic and Rob Bell are better treated in pastoral terms than terms of theological exactitude.
My experience is that neither churched or unchurched young people today have any narrative or imagination about life after death. They yearn for one, particularly in the urban area I live where death is often at an early age.
I rejoice that Rob has exposed us to these questions that too few of us have been willing to deal with.
Peace,
Randy G.
I’ll be interested to see if any thought will be given to “the wrath of God.” So much of the discussion on hell (is it symbolic? is it real? is it eternal?), to me, misses what’s underneath it, which is the wrath of God.
#52, Peggy, I agree, that was nice comic relief!
Scott I am so excited that you are tackling this weighty subject with calm and grace. I look forward to your future posts. My life’s experiences have started in an orthodox environment and now I am in a questioning environment.
To be honest I am saddened by the splits in the church and how orthodoxy hangs on to the truth as a badge of honor, or a punched ticket to heaven.
Look forward to this great learning experience and potential growth.
I would like to take a different approach. I haven’t read “Love Wins” yet, so I reserve judgment on that particular book. I’ve read Bell’s other books and followed some of the controversy.
There is surprisingly little we know about the afterlife from the Bible. And so any approach that pretends to have the definitive answer to such questions is, in my view, deficient. Even Jesus doesn’t know the time or the hour, a statement which underscores a deep humility which we all ought to emulate when it comes to questions about the afterlife. We are ‘prophesying’ when we make statements about the new heavens and the new earth.
Second, we should speak of universalism(s) in the plural. There are a great many varieties. Not all universalism(s) negate the reality of hell. Heck, even Barth was accused of universalism because his neo-orthodoxy led in that direction.
Peggy #52,
Thanks! This whole conversation could use a healthy dose of laughter.
I appreciate this post and this dialog.
My thoughts and experiences related to questions like these obliged me to leave the evangelical movement. (More accurately, they seem to have resulted in my being excluded from it.)
More on my thoughts and experiences can be read at
http://blogofthenamelessnerd.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/hell/,
if anyone is interested.
Scot, an excellent beginning! Thank you. I look forward to reading more.
Thank you for this series.Over the years of wrestling with these issues, especially after John Stott spoke and published on them back in the late 80s, I have more less adopted a middle view, based more I guess on what I can live with intellectually and emotionally, then on compelling theological argument: Jesus and his work on the cross is the only way/door/path to eternal salvation (whatever that is).
The way to that salvation is available to all. How that work of Christ is applied/obtained/received to individuals involves some nexus if choice, will, belief, understanding, repentance, commitment, but the portion of eath may vary from person to person baeed on their unique life experience. That God is full of love, grace, mercy, holiness, justice, with all wisdom, understanding, power, and that he does for all what fits fully all those attributes.
That most will somehow obtain salvation, that the cross is more powerful than we know or understand, but that some will not find salvation. What the reality or experience on “non-salvation” is or will be, I am basically agnostic. I really don’t know.
Thank you, Peggy (#52), for introducing us to Donald Miller’s teasingly intriguing review of LOVE WINS. Don does such a good job!
Peggy (#52)
Love and Dentistry Win!
I’m suprised no one has mentioned the book Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson. It is a very interesting thesis that applies to this discussion.
after reading it myself i have had many thoughts on the nature of salvation through Jesus Christ (much in line with what jeff d [21] has pointed out).
to SJA (#10): your approach requires a great deal of confidence that many unfortunately don’t have. though not directly stated thus far, i do believe that the issue in question has a lot to do with our ability to allow people a place for exploration instead being spoon fed doctrines.
BTW, my church are of the ‘hurry up and save people from hte fire’ variety. and few within are otherwise.
re: Universalism, I still think Rob is just creating purgatory for the non-catholics.
DRT (#67)- I think you’re on to something, and in my conversations with people about Love Wins, that concept has come up.
Of course then we will need to deconstruct our notions of purgatory, but that shouldn’t be as much of an issue as hell is.
DRT and Kenton,
I’m not sure if you are saying this but it seems you are so let me respond to what I perceive:
Many Prots think Catholic belief in purgatory is a second chance. It’s not. Purgatory is for Christians who need to have sins purged. Second chances after death are a much rarer belief in the history of the church.
There is clearly some kind of belief in a second chance in the tradition of the descent into hades for some theologians, and one could see it in some of the liturgies of the East, but by and large my perception of church history on this topic is that genuine second chance theology is rare.
I’m reading on this topic but have yet to read a good study of the history of this idea.
It appears to me that the “misguided and toxic” quote is not accurate. It is not the “story” that is toxic, it is the claim that a belief in a literal fire and brimstone eternal hell is central to the Christian faith.
The full quote:
“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and that to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
Bell is pushing back against the idea that rejecting a traditional view of hell is to reject Jesus. In other words, he is rejecting that a belief in a traditional view of hell as necessary for salvation. That seems appropriate to me.
What other conditions are we going to put on people being “saved”? They must also believe in the correct model of atonement? No wonder we can’t discuss hell in our churches.
Dennis #65,
Funny you should say. I did not mention Eternity in Their Hearts in my earlier post (#21), but it has influenced my thinking about this.
Joel, the issue is the referent in “This.” I take “This” to refer to the story of a select few going to heaven and the rest going to hell. That is the “this” that is “toxic.” Are you saying “This” applies only to the belief in hell? If so I’m not sure there is all that much difference: the story of select vs. most or belief in most going to hell.
Scot and Kenton, yes, that is what I am saying. There are those who are corrupt and god can tell that they are corrupt so he can send some there. I am not sure what hell really is, but I think it is clearly seperation from god.
My upbringing (youth) in the Catholic Church drove a middle path between the protestant once saved always saved idea (or more to the point of this post, if not saved then damned to hell) and the universalist view of everyone is saved. Purgatory fully aknowledges that we need to be faithful to god (not really faith in god), and we must pursue god, but also acknowledges that we are not perfect, and that we have to work on ourselves as part of his kingdom here. It is not a second chance, it is a purge.
….but the other component is that we meet Jesus all the time but in forms that we do not recognize. Just as the sheep claim that they never knew him, we do not have to hear the actual name Jesus to be saved.
My bet is the Ghandi knew Jesus. And my bet is that he is spending less time in purgatory than I will
Scot (#69)-
So I heard (catholic) Peter Kreeft describe purgatory as a “Heaven’s washroom” (Not sure that was his exact wording, but that was the concept). It’s a purging in the sense that we enter the resurrection not quite ready to enter into a full communion with God, but needing to wash up.
I know that’s not the same as a second chance, but I think calling what Bell’s talking about “second chance” misses the point much like a traditional understanding of purgatory misses the point. That’s why I added the bit about deconstructing purgatory. When we get to the part of the book that talks about the prodigal son we can revisit this idea with more clarity. In short I would say that to the extent the older brother is in hell/purgatory (working in his own pigs’ sty, perhaps?) he’s working out his bitterness and the other issues that make him resent the grace of God.
DRT (#74) -
“My bet is the Ghandi knew Jesus. And my bet is that he is spending less time in purgatory than I will
”
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
(70) Joel. Bravo! I had not noticed that. The “misguided and toxic” is refering not to belief in eternal conscious torment, but to the belief that one cannot be a Christian if one rejects eternal conscious torment. I missed that.
DRT-
“My bet is the Ghandi knew Jesus.”
Based on….?
How’s that Lenten blogging fast working out for dopderbeck. Glad I only gave up meat!
Rick#78, I put Ghandi in the category of someone who had profound benefits to the underprivileged of the world, those who are naked, hungry etc. So he helped a lot of Jesus’s. (which I now understand to be the grammatically correct way to spell that). Per the sheep and goats, among other things.
It’s safer to talk about these question in my church than it is in other churches that are part of Calvary Chapel like we are. But safer doesn’t mean safe. I think there’s still a bit of fear-fretting about being right about everything that goes on with us. Our denomination seems to be very concerned about everything that is not exactly us.
It does seem to me that these questions, and this discussion, must be safe to ask and to have. Scot, along with many others, thank you for dealing with this in wisdom and love.
But Jeff, there are two instances of “this.” The second one is unclear and the first one in “this” belief makes me think the second one is connected to the first, and the first one is to the tandem notions of select going to heaven and the rest going to hell — that such an idea is at the essence of Christian belief. Where am I wrong?
Scot (#72)
I think there is a difference. If “This” refers to the attitude that you can’t be a Christian without believing in hell as eternal torment, then Bell is making room for different points of view.
On one hand Bell could be saying that the traditional belief in hell is toxic. That is certainly offensive to many. On the other, he could be saying the dogma around the belief is toxic. I took it as the latter as it reflects my own experience. I don’t mind if other Christians believe in hell as a place of literal eternal conscious torment. But I do mind being told I’m not a Christian because I don’t believe the right things regarding hell. I think that is hurtful and rightly described as toxic.
That was my initial impression when reading the book. Certainly, the writing could be a bit clearer.
I think you could substitute many secondary beliefs and the quote would still make sense. “It’s been clearly communicated to many that penal substitutionary atonement is a central truth of the Christian faith and that to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic…”
Is the belief in penal substititionary atonement toxic? Or the belief that it is a requirement of being a true Christian?
Joel #83-
I have not read the book, but isn’t it about those views of heaven and hell, and not about what is central truth? If he felt the central truth issue was toxic, wouldn’t the book be about essentials?
DRT-
Couldn’t an atheist do the same thing?
Where does repentance and the cross come into play?
Thanks Joel. Let’s back up to the quote one more time:
“A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and that to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.”
My first point is this: there’s no way to know for sure the referent, so any interpretation that says something specific founders on the lack of clarity in how that sentence is written. The second “This” could refer to the previous clause or to the previous “this”.
Second point: since he’s got “this” twice, I’d suggest they refer to the story as toxic. That the Christian message is about some making and others not. In the fabric of Rob’s book, that message is one that he’s against.
Rick (#78) –
Based on the fact that Gandhi “got it.” Gandhi got that love of neighbor and even love of enemy were the calling of God incarnate. His believing that gave him “the life of all time” (“aionios zoe”) appearances to the contrary. My desire is to follow Jesus that way, but frankly I’m not all that good at it.
These are excellent comments.
I belong to PeaceNext, the social network of the Parliament of World Religions. Members are primarily Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, but many smaller faiths and indigenous traditions are also represented.
While we don’t agree on everything (who does?), we feel that working together in the cause of peace is the greatest service we can perform for the divine…by whatever name. Terminology is a trap; love and compassion free us.
Scot:
Thanks for tackling such an important issue at Jesus Creed.
Here was a balanced Greg Boyd post focused on Love Wins:
http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
A delightful alternative to all the serious discussion was provided today by Don Miller:
http://donmilleris.com/2011/04/01/my-review-of-love-wins/
Dave
Rather than Lewis, I think a better comparison to Rob Bell’s opening the door to the issue of universalism is Lewis’s spiritual “father” George MacDonald. Lewis was an inclusivist, but MacDonald was a universalist. While Lewis explicitly, by name, made clear that he disagreed with MacDonald’s universalism, he never lost his respect for MacDonald and indeed Lewis edited and sought to have published an anthology of MacDonald’s works. Here is what Lewis said about MacDonald in the introduction to that volume:
“This collection, as I have said, was designed not to revive MacDonald’s literary reputation but to spread his religious teaching. Hence most of my extracts are taken from the three volumes of Unspoken Sermons. My own debt to this book is almost as great as one man can owe to another: and nearly all serious inquirers to whom I have introduced it acknowledge that it has given them great help—sometimes indispensable help toward the very acceptance of the Christian faith.
“I know hardly any other writer who seems to be closer, or more continually close, to the Spirit of Christ Himself. Hence his Christ-like union of tenderness and severity. Nowhere else outside the New Testament have I found terror and comfort so intertwined. … In making this collection I was discharging a debt of justice. I have never concealed the fact that I regarded him as my master; indeed I fancy I have never written a book in which I did not quote from him. But it has not seemed to me that those who have received my books kindly take even now sufficient notice of the affiliation. Honesty drives me to emphasize it.”
If Lewis the inclusivist could write that about MacDonald the universalist, I wish that Rob Bell’s evangelical critics (most of whom love or at least respect Lewis) would be willing to take a more Lewisean attitude in their disagreement with Rob Bell
Kenton-
“Gandhi got that love of neighbor and even love of enemy were the calling of God incarnate.”
The calling of God incarnate was also to believe in Him, and proclaim the Good News.
I Amen the part that this generation needs to consider the questions addressed by Lewis in the books you noted. Here’s the question I’d like to see addressed: If everyone gets into heaven anyway, what’s the point of the Cross?
Rick, I think all those topics will come up in the appropriate context. Suffice it to say that I feel you don’t have to have actually know the word “jesus” to be “saved”, but you do. That’s OK brother!
@karenzach: I am not strictly a universalist, though I’m an inclusivist and restitutionist, and hopeful of universal salvation. I don’t want to speak for pure unis too much, but, I think their answre is:
Yes. Everyone eventually enters God’s renewed creation. That *is* the purpose/point of the cross, because it would never have happened otherwise.
Are we saved by grace through faith in Jesus the Messiah? Or is it by good works and kind thoughts, because we “get it”? How easily it slips into Pelagianism. I’m not going to say that Gandhi is in hell, but I’m not going to say he is in heaven either. Not my call to make nor my assurance to offer. As a Christian, I am authorized to offer assurance on the basis of faith in Jesus the Messiah. Not on the basis of anyone’s good deeds. Outside of that I leave for God to determine.
Are we now talking about Ghandi? Wasn’t there a new book released just this week about him that portrayed him in a very negative light?
@joel and @scotmcknight:
I think Bell is saying BOTH, although, as I read the book, he is mostly concerned that in the end that people understand they can disagree with “God sends billions to eternal torment” viewpoint and still be a Christian. In other words, his main objective is based on a pastoral concern that a mis-presentation of the gospel is driving people away. Chapter 7 is pretty clear on this.
This captures the idea for me:
“And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God. They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with…can’t be loved. That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.” pp. 174-75
Then, and I think this is really important, his complaint is further refined a few paragraphs later: “We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell.” p. 177.
DRT #92-
My position may not be what you think it is.
You stated, “I feel you don’t have to have actually know the word “jesus” to be “saved”
However, Ghandhi did know the name Jesus. If, and how he embraced Him, I never heard, other than saying he liked Jesus, but was not necessarily thrilled with Christians.
Jeff Doles, one of the things I anticipate that we will be discussing is Rob Bell’s assertion that some words like – believe, think kind thoughts, etc – are verbs, they are actions, they are works.
Rick, have your read Rob’s book? His argument on the “which Jesus” is relevant. Is it Rachel’s Jesus? Yours? Mine?
@Karenzach,
Those in the “wider mercy” camp would say that it’s Christ’s work on the cross that makes it possible for all or most to eventually make it.
I’m not able to personally subscribe to that theology but I think that’s a fair summary. That’s how Rob is able to affirm Jesus’ “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except by me.”
DRT #99-
I have not read the book. What are the differences in “Jesus”?
(85) Scot and (83) Joel. I acknowledge the argument suggesting the “this”es refer to the same thing as a possibility. However, as I reread the passage aloud a few times, it just seems flow-wise that the second “this” is referring to kicking people out of the club for their beliefs on hell. I could be wrong. More importantly, Joel’s reading is a possibility, and as such that line seems to be taken off the table as a place of controversy.
Young writers take note. Proximal demonstratives and pronouns can get you in lots of trouble.
Rick#101, Friday night calls (you don’t think JC is the only thing I do, right?) , but I would not do justice to Rob Bell’s portrayal in a short summary. I think it is safe to say, though, that the concept is that the Jesus we are confronted with is the Jesus that we are confronted with.
DRT #103-
Tonight is just the lull before the Final Four games.
Although I have not read the book, this sounds like you are referring to Chapter 6 (Jesus as the “rock”).
Ben Witherington’s on-going review has now discussed that chapter, and the numerous problems with it.
Joel and Scot,
I can’t wait for your forthcoming Exegetical Commentary on Love Wins. Will that be published by an Evangelical publisher or by Harper?
Scot,
Your thoughts soothe my heart. As I sit here in the midst of a community who does not seem to be willing to engage in such dialogue (due to their rigid doctrinal beliefs), your godly perspective calms me down and calls me to love them. Thank you. I look forward to reading more!
Rick-
No, it’s the first chapter. I think you can find it in the samples at amazon or bn.com.
Of course you can also just let Ben Witherington think for you instead of applying any critical thinking of your own. Lot’s of other folks are doing just that.
-Kenton
Thanks, Scot for taking this on and leading us to think through it. I so much appreciate the post and the conversation following it. This reminds me of A Theology Of Reading: The Hermeneutics Of Love (Radical Traditions)by Alan Jacobs, which I have yet to read.
I think most evangelical churches I know of seem reticent to take up these kind of questions. I also think they are good ones which are either on the minds of many of us, or which we already have and lived from our own answers, which we think are scriptural, or at least of the God of scripture.
I look forward to more.
….sorry again I don’t proofread after changing sentences.
BEST REVIEW EVER
http://donmilleris.com/2011/04/01/my-review-of-love-wins/
Kenton #107-
I have such a long backlog of books to get to, it may be some time before I get to Bell’s book. I imagine a lot of people are in the same boat, so it helps to look at the reviews of qualified scholars (such as Witherington and Scot) to determine whether it is even worth getting.
But thanks for the kind words ;^)
Wonder if those who address their responses to other posts as “@… ” might also include the comment # to which they’re responding (ie., @jesuscreed #132). Otherwise, it is very tedious to have to scroll up looking for “@so and so’s” comment, and even more challenging when the individual has made several different comments. Adding the comment # makes it so much easier to track.
I was too harsh, Rick, and I apologize.
I would say, though, bump Love Wins up to the top of the queue. It’s a quick read and to really participate in the discussion you need your own opinions. The most frustrating thing I’ve had to deal in discussing this book is people “phoning it in” as it were and letting someone else’s opinion dictate their own. Inevitably Ben Witherington and Kevin DeYoung’s names seem to pop up in those conversations. The reviews of those two in particular belie how wrapped up they are in their paradigms to the point that they just. don’t. “get it.”
Kenton-
No problem. All’s good.
In reading the book: fair enough. I will take your advice and bump up the book on my list.
In regards to Witherington’s review in particular, his review is interesting, and carries some weight, because of his credentials, his theology (not neo-reformed), and because he has been an outspoken defender of Bell in the past. He likes Bell and recognizes his talent and potential.
I’ve started the book and I’m liking what I read [at least so far]. As to the questions Bell asks; why wouldn’t we ask and discuss them? I can’t imagine being in a church that wouldn’t want to explore the issues addressed in “Love Wins.” Perhaps the real problem is creedal Christianity. In my view creeds end up building walls; in effect, believe this if you want to be “one of us.” Doesn’t work for me.
One comment on Bell’s style of writing; I truly enjoy it. It’s near poetic. And, at the same time, very provocative. Posing points as questions will do that I guess.
I wonder would there be as much worry about heaven or hell we were Loving God with all that is in us and then loving our neighbor as ourselves?
My heart is to be like Jesus and I never recall Him saying follow me or you will burn in Hell for ever. Perhaps people are using Hell as there motovational tool to fear people into heaven, Jesus didnt do that.
If we are so focused on Jesus and fulfilling who we are in Him and who He is in us. Then why all the worry? why the fuss? When you are so focused on Him everything else falls away.
I think this book challenges where your faith lies, is it totally on Jesus? or what you have been told by peers? Doctrines? The bible or interpretations of the bible? Be careful not to harden yourself as then I would have to ask what if Rob is your neighbor? Are you loving him as yourself? if not then you are being disobedient.
: )
Hey Rick #78, my understanding is that Gandhi came to an appreciation of Jesus through the writings of Tolstoy. What kept him from becoming a Christian was his aversion to many cultural traits of Christianity.
I am personally sympathetic with what Rob Bell is attempting to do. I was deeply enriched by reading “God’s Rivals” by Gerald McDermott (2007) and “who can be saved?” by Terrance Tiessen (2004) both of which were reviewed in this forum. However, I am wondering did anyone else have difficulty reading “Love Wins”? or am I the only one? I found the writing style nearly impossible to follow. I may give it another try after reading a few of these reviews.
Oh! I just now saw RCB’s #114 comment. Maybe I am just too old, too modern or too left brained. I will give it another go. Parts of it struck me like Dr. Seuss poetry … paragraphs that were only 2 words long. I guess it is hard to locate a thesis statement in poetry.
Hey, josenmiami #117, I’m 66 years old, and a retired engineer. I find the larger question is the message in Bell’s book.
Before I begin your series, Scot, and before I read any of the comments, I want to share this observation about Rob Bell’s book (ahead of reading it as well). I find it fascinating to see the community all a-quiver over this. For some, it represents an opportunity to sell new materials. For others it’s the last stand before the gates of the church are overwhelmed (perhaps that’s a point of view that “hell wins”). For others a clarion call to stomp this emergent church thing into the ground because, you know, it’s emergent and asks questions and says we need to think through our faith and what would Calvin and Luther say? (Wait a minute, I may have just stepped past the cliff edge.)
I say this not intending to make light of any of these positions, well maybe a little bit to those who miss what Luther and Calvin did do, but to say that this is a good sign of vitality in the community, and that for those who take the questions Rob Bell proposes seriously and thoughtfully, then at least some bit of what his purpose was/is, is being accomplished.
I look forward to reading what you have to say, and pray that I can be open to all positions expressed in the community, and to the hearts behind them, as I’m called to respond by those in my small circle of connectivity.
karenzach @ 91,
You asked, “If everyone gets into heaven anyway, what’s the point of the Cross?”
Simply put, the point of the Cross was so that all can get into heaven! Jesus died so that He could reconcile all of creation to God, everything in heaven and earth, so that every knee will bow in worship and every tongue joyfully proclaim allegiance to God!
If a life-guard saves 100 out of 100, does that in any way lessen the threat of drowning? Of course not! Rather, it highlights the magnitude of the saving power of the life-guard!
There are so many who are up in arms over this book, that the enemy must be laughing his head off. I do not believe in the universalism that is taught even if it is subtle. Did the snake come out and tell Eve what was really going to happen? No, he was subtle.
I believe in the whole Gospel of Christ. I also believe that our God who produced the lamb “slain BEFORE the foundation of the world” has provided for those who never get to hear the Gospel. In our limited wisdom, we try to out-think God.
In 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, it tells of the gospel preached to the “spirits in prison” 3:19 and “also to those who are dead” 4:6. God is just and holy, I believe that He gives all people the right to accept Jesus or reject Him. Because we do not understand His ways does not mean that He has not planned beforehand the very thing that is at issue here.
I’m glad that our church does not delve into speculations about an unending future destination or condition but simply quotes the Apostles’ Creed as its basis for any statement of belief. That Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead remains central to NT thought whatever that truth may spell out in detail. Our response in the here and now is what the message of love and reconciliation is really all about.
As far as my personal convictions are concerned, salvation is not about being saved from God’s rejection but being saved from our misconception of God’s rejection and the sphere of idolatry, death and essentially self-condemnation inherent in that distorted view and created false reality. While judgment has a punitive element, it ultimately can only be understood in its greater restorative purpose. I believe that God’s oath to have all rebellious nations come and bow their knees confessing Him to be their righteousness will not rest until it is fulfilled and it will be just as non-coercive in the future as the worship of believers and followers is right now.
Scot, I could not find your email address on here and needed to email you privately about the recent suicide of my ex-husband. Could you email me so that I can send it to you privately?
Andie at TCU