Once again, the blogosphere is aflame about a book that’s not even out yet: Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.
I don’t want to make the mistake of reviewing a book that I’ve never even seen, but the belief amongst the bloggers is that Bell is flirting with universalism, the belief that somehow all humans are saved and thus none are doomed to eternal hell.
This is an old idea, going back at least a few centuries (with a precursor in the church father Origen, although it’s not quite the same idea.) So far, all I’ve heard from Bell is a few leading questions, so I’m not sure what formulation – if any – he’s reached. I suppose he could also have gone off to the side and went with something like annihilationism or C.S. Lewis’ idea of hell being simply the absence of God.
Regardless, a few hints were enough to set off John Piper and Justin Taylor, who expressed disappointment in Bell. As Christianity Today records, most of the argument has taken place on twitter. We’re a long way from nailing theses to doors.
In reaction, there have been a number of more moderate responses from folks like Matthew Paul Turner, Jason Boyett, Rachel Held Evans and Fred Clark. David Hayward produced the above comic and Hemant has an atheist’s reaction to the argument.
Obviously, I don’t have any skin in this game. But one thing I’ve noticed is the difference in style. The moderates are arguing for pluralism, and reasonably pointing towards the multiple possible interpretations of scripture. In contrast, most of Bell’s opponents (Fred Clark labels them “Team Hell”) seem to be arguing for orthodoxy and proclaiming that Bell is misguided at best, a heretic at worst.
But Team Hell is loudly arguing for orthodoxy without explaining how that orthodoxy is established. Rather than get bogged down with discussions of the parable of Lazarus and Dives, where they might be forced to explain why the description of hell should be taken seriously but not the argument that you’ll wind up there if you’re wealthy, they just keep shouting.
As a result, they comes across as authoritarians more interested in shutting down discussion, while Bell and his tentative supporters come across as open minded. That’s not a winning strategy for Team Hell.
You just described pretty much every conservative of just about any stripe in that line! Well done!
“Shutting down discussion” has always been the first goal of team hell.
It’s sort of why they made up hell in the first place.
Haha! *So* this!
End of discussion.
(Or you’re punished – forever! Bwaaaaaahahahahaha!)
The argument for orthodoxy seems to be that it has always been this way. Which is not an argument but a statement of laziness.
But Team Hell is loudly arguing for orthodoxy without explaining how that orthodoxy is established.
That’s because, as Slacktivist has rightly pointed out, they can’t actually explain that orthodoxy and stick to the idea of Biblical literalism and the default Sola Scriptura that is the fundamentalist argument. They get Hell from Dante and Milton, not Jesus and Paul. They get the idea that those who don’t pray the “Sinner’s Prayer” from…well, I’m still not entirely sure where that one came from. But if you go to the Bible and read the bits where Jesus claims his own sheep and sends the goats out to the place with the darkness and gnashing of teeth he does so based on the simple idea that the sheep saw need and responded while the goats didn’t.
Moreover, Jesus also at one point says that there will be those who come to him and claim that they spoke out in his name and preached. Jesus will say to them that he did not know them. Why? Probably because they were more interested in speech than works.
The problem, as I know from first-hand experience, is that you can’t think about this too much if you want to remain in the fold. Once you start trying to figure out what the Bible actually says you realize it contradicts the stuff the pastor says in church. You also realize it contradicts itself. At that point the options are to stop learning and thinking or to try to work through the implications. If you work through the implications you either become a universalist of some sort or non-religious.
That’s the problem the fundamentalists have had with the Emergent folks. Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and all of the guys like them are pushing towards conclusions that are deeply uncomfortable because they’re pushing towards conclusions that don’t make fundamentalist brand Christianity the end-all, be-all. Since fundamentalist Christianity splits the world in to for us/against us, that means Bell has made his declaration against Christianity by not supporting the (unsupportable) party line.
I see where you’re coming from, and generally agree with you, but Milton is a bit late for a source of our concept of Hell, surely? Even Dante seems a long way along the line for me. I would have thought that Greek tradition of Hades is a clearer source for the Christian version of Hell. I wonder how mainstream christians would react to the accusation that their formulation of hell is essentially pagan?
We establish the Bible’s authority by appealing to it as a historical record of the life of Jesus and looking at his teaching on the subject. Jesus estalbished the Old Testament and promised the New Testament. It makes sense to have the Bible as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters after you reason through this.
Except the bible is not a historical record. It is historically inaccurate and not even consistent with itself. Which of Jesus’ two presented lineages is correct, and why is his lineage determined through a non-blood relation in his step-father anyway? And when was this census where everyone was expected to go to their home town?
Your questions can be answered by any number of good study Bibles.
One lineage is through Mary, the other through Joseph. Why give Joseph’s lineage? To establish legal right, or course.
The census took place over a period of years starting around 8 or 7 BC. These things could take up to 40 years to complete (no phones or fast trasportation). Is was not an unusual requirement to go to your home town because we have records of a decree under C. Vibus Mazimus in 104 that required this.
Gandalf established the Silmarrilion and promised The Return of the King. It makes sense to have The Lord of the Rings as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters after you reason through this.
Winston learned to love Big Brother. It makes sense that there are five lights after you reason through this.
This could be fun.
We establish Star Wars’ authority by appealing to it as a historical record of the life of Anakin Skywalker and looking at his teaching on the subject. Lucas estalbished the Original Trilogy and promised the Prequel Trilogy. It makes sense to have Star Wars as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters after you reason through this.
Hey, this is kinda fun!
This is why sand is an abomination.
Sand *IS* an abomination! Have you ever tried to get it all out of your bathing suit? And it tracks everywhere! And it’s all scratchy!
Damn the sand!
Give me Star Wars, there at least I could wear a dark cape and I always have the mystical force!
We establish Star Trek’s authority by appealing to it as a historical record of the life of Captain James T. Kirk and Commander Spock and looking at their teachings on the Prime Directive. Gene Roddenberry (Great Bird of the Galaxy) established the Original Series, the feature films and divinely inspired the Next Generation. It makes sense to have the Original Series as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters after you reason through this.
May The Great Bird of the Galaxy bless your planet. Live long and prosper.
And peace and long life to you as well.
Well Bell’s Hells!!! This looks like a religion I can really get behind… unlike that tomfoolery that Peter Griffin calls “The Church of the Fonz.”
Eyyyyyy!
Yeah, just like Futurama!
“All power to the engines!”
Sheldon Cooper, first Apostle of Trek
ooh, ooh, me too…
We establish Firefly’s authority by appealing to it as a historical record of the life of Malcolm Reynolds and looking at his teaching on the subject. Joss Weddon estalbished the TV series and promised Serenity the movie. It makes sense to have Firefly as the ultimate authority on spiritual matters after you reason through this.
Provide one bit of evidence that the NT documents were originally put forth as fiction, please.
Oh good grief, JK’s back and spouting….
Hey! I’m JK. Don’t mix me up with J.K. (Jones) please :(.
Apologies!
Apology accepted :)
Was not really offended, since I knew you meant the other guy ^^.
We establish the Bible’s authority by
appealing to it aspretending it’s a historical record of the life of Jesus and looking at his teaching on the subjectFixed that for you.
Saying it does not make it so.
The word reason does not belong in that sentence, unless combined with a negative.
I thought the problem was that the bible doesn’t really say anything unambiguous about heaven or hell?
I think Sunny Day’s reply to this ASSumption has it correct.
Go back and read that.
Aside from Jesus teaching on what subject? Your NT part of the “bible” didn’t exist, so Jesus didn’t teach on that subject. Next!
The old testament was around before Jesus, so he didn’t establish it at all. Wrong again!
Wrong again!
Reason has gotten a lot of the bloggers here to see the contradictions in the bible, and how it fails to hold up to reason.
I get tired of re-posting the same starter links for simpletons showing a few biblical contradictions, so just search on this site for “biblical contradictions”. You haven’t tried reason yet; if you’ve got the capacity for it, give it a try!
“…Your NT part of the “bible” didn’t exist, so Jesus didn’t teach on that subject.”
NT Gospels were written down within the life of the Apostles who verified what was said so no mistakes were made. Everybody know that.
“The old testament was around before Jesus, so he didn’t establish it at all.”
He said “Thy Word is Truth” in John 17, refering to the OT. He has authority as the Divine Son of God, so I believe Him.
“You haven’t tried reason yet; if you’ve got the capacity for it, give it a try!”
Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. Many, many times I have been ‘called to task’ to provide evidence on this site. I hav happily obliged. Why are you the exception?
Most all of these so call “contradictions” are cleared up by a good study Bible. Why don’t you go read one.
You don’t even know the history of your own holy book, do you?
The problem with “everybody knows” is how often it’s used to brush past things you’re wrong about. The first gospel (Mark) wasn’t written down until around 70CE, and the next two (Luke and John) were basically plagiarisms of Mark with alterations in them to suit the authors.
You have never once given evidence for anything at all, ever on this site. Quoting scripture is not evidence.
“The problem with “everybody knows” is how often it’s used to brush past things you’re wrong about. The first gospel (Mark) wasn’t written down until around 70CE, and the next two (Luke and John) were basically plagiarisms of Mark with alterations in them to suit the authors.”
… baby Jesus cries at such words.
I love how Jesus promised the New Testament *IN* the New Testament.
That’s some iron-clad logic.
Vorjack wrote: “That’s not a winning strategy for Team Hell.”
…however “team Hell” *IS* a winning strategy for “Team Atheism”. A doctrine so morally bankrupt and transparently self-serving is often argument #1 against the ability for religion to accurately reflect either compassion or reality.
Rob Bell, you horrible person! You will make liberal Christians of people fed up with Hell, instead of atheists! Curse you to nonexistent Hell! ;-)
‘I love how Jesus promised the New Testament *IN* the New Testament’
Its easy, because He is the ‘Word made flesh’, that’s how. All the best.
Hi, JC! Long time, no see! I hope you are well!
:D
Yes, the word made flesh… according to the New Testament. Funny that…
The first rule of circular argument is the first rule of circular argument is the first rule of circular argument. . .
LOL!!! WIN!
No argument at all, that’s the first and best rule actually. The ‘Word made flesh’ means the very life of God manifest in His/our flesh.
Round and round the Ty’ster goes, where he lands…God only knows.
All the best!
Round and round? Projecting poster projects.
Ratt poster projects Ratt…
(LOL!)
The first rule of circular argument is you do not talk about circular argument.
Literally.
I miss Neil C. Blowhardt. If I took a few classes in computer programming, I bet I could program a John C blah-blah simulator.
Plug-ins: “religion not true path” “inner christ in man” “must have in heart” Have fields for variables, mix up and insert variables at random or by any other selection program.
But Blowhardt was the most fun. Feed him a peanut through his bars and get a full-on rant.
There is a massive difference between accepting the Bible as a basically reliable historical record and accepting it as the Word of God. I start at the first premis and reason to the last.
That’s not circular, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Since your first premise is false (and in fact is very easily proven to be false in many, many places), you must therefore accept that it isn’t the word of God and abandon your Christianity. Or do you only want to pretend to use logic when it suits you? And of course it’s circular! You believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true – there is not other reason to believe it, because everything else (i.e. actual history and the evidence) say it’s false.
“I start at the first premis and reason to the last.”
Reason … it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Bell seems to have ‘solved’ the problem of Hell by excising it from his theology. But has he solved the problem of Heaven?
This is the problem of Heaven, as I see it: do you have free will in Heaven? If yes, then free will is compatible with a world without evil. If no, then free will is not necessary according to God. So either way, the problem of Heaven leads to the problem of Evil. The only way out is to get rid of Heaven. Without Heaven and Hell, what is the point of the God concept?
and what does it mean to be ‘saved’ if there is no Hell? What are you saved from? Bell is ‘saving’ you from … the idea that we must conform to religion to be saved? Sounds good to me, but why doesn’t he take the next step and reject the need for God as well as Hell? Guess we’ll have to wait for his book.
Free will is simply the idea that we alwasy do what we want in any given circumstance. In heaven, we have no evil desires.
Where did evil desires come from? I don’t know! But they are still evil. You have to establish a foundation for objective good and evil for the objection to make sense anyway, and I have never hear an athiest do that.
All religions preach the glory of suffering. How convenient to keep people both down and happy to be there. There is enough suffering in a world of death without glorifying it and creating some fictional reward for it. Heaven and Hell are human constructs created by people who want to manipulate others. It is the cultural, historical version of mommy and daddy telling stories about the boogey man and santa claus to keep their ignorant and superstitious children in line. Religion is the ultimate expression of a culture based on reward and punishment rather tha a culture based on internally satisfying and compassionate drirected behavior. We don’t need religion. In fact, we would evolve to a much deeper and more loving cultural state without religion. Religion is nothing but politics and Jesus is a brand based on myth and manipulation. Take these religious pundits, remove their costumes of power and put them all in a hot tub and who would take them seriously? Jesus never came to save anyone. The new book, The Second Coming, The Last Parable of Jesus will settle all the prophesies and debates about the second coming and the end of days. Read it and finally relax in the truth instead of the anxiety that comes from elitist propaganda. For Christ’s sake…GROW UP!
Except for plugging your book, that comment was great!
Yeah, ixnay on the shameless lugpay next time, hey?
The new book, Leviathan Wakes, by James S.A. Corey, will settle all the prophesies and debates about the second coming and the end of days. Read it and finally relax in the truth instead of the anxiety that comes from elitist propaganda. For Christ’s sake…GROW UP!
That’s cool, right?
>:(
:P
Yeah, probably. Spam filter didn’t catch it, so what the hell.
What anxiety from elitist propaganda? We’re unbelievers, the only religious anxiety we suffer is awkward conversations with relatives, or legislation that violates church/state separation.
Maybe change your standard copy/paste text to fit your audience before posting next time?
“Obviously, I don’t have any skin in this game.”
Me either. That’s why I’m rooting for Team Hell- the name is just too awesome.
Oh, they love Rob Bell at the Rapture Ready forum.
I am not familiar with Bell but i am very familiar with Carlton Pearson. He pretty much lost it all when he said there is no such thing as hell. Evangelicals go ape sh**t when they see him come around
Pingback: Universalism? Annihilationism? A reflection on Rob Bell’s latest book, by CT managing editor Mark Galli | Grateful to the dead
Pingback: “Love Wins…”, Rob Bell, Evangelical Twitter chaos – (I can’t resist joining the chatter!) | ChrisKozacek.com
Pingback: Jesus Will Save My Soul Whether I’m Conscious or Not « Belief in People
I don’t see why we have to have christians, but the types you call “universalist”, a new term to me in this context, are much more bearable. I’ll take likable over hostile, hateful and controlling, the more common kind of christian.*
*cited evidence: fundies posting on this blog site
How can they maintain any serious air of self-righteousness if they can’t chuckle inwardly at the thought of others going to Hell?
To paraphrase Peter Gabriel: How can we be In, if no one is Out?