In lieu of Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins" I want to say a few things about what I believe:
First:
I think the Rob Bell book should have been called, “We Lost.” Honestly, I have been ashamed by Bell, his publisher (not sure where most of the blame should reside) and the crazy people who piled on before even reading the book. The book is entitled “Love Wins,” but because of the manipulative promotional approach Bell and his publisher utilized I am suggesting that it should have been entitled, “We Lost.” It has needlessly served to polarize scores of people all to get sales and to make money. This may not have been their base motive, but it certainly came off that way (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…you know the rest). This, I would surmise is the most grievous act of the entire fiasco. So much so, that I am teetering on not reading the book out of sheer principle. Not just a few of us who are watching and commenting on the state of the western church have cited the voracious consumerism of the west as probably it’s greatest foe. The approach utilized in marketing this book was a brilliant ploy for marketing and making money (I have heard that it is selling more than the Pope’s book), but in my opinion is reprehensible and really more a sign of our culture than of the gracious Kingdom we are supposed to be pointing and living toward. I have nothing against Bell, I just think there was a serious mis-fire in his approach in getting the word out. There! That is enough about that. It is off my chest and I can move on.
Secondly:
While I have heard from numerous reputable folks who have actually read the book that Bell does not actually ascribe to universalism (Universalism is the teaching that all people will be saved), nonetheless, I simply want to say that I believe that the philosophy of universalism is outside of the scope of historical and biblical orthodoxy. It is a compassionate idea, but finds little actual grounding in the Bible.
Lastly:
While many, including Bell it seems ascribe to a perspective that does not adhere to a literal view of hell, I simply want to say that I do. Not because I necessarily want to (it seems like some of the neo-reform folk actually enjoy the idea of hell and wrath and think God does too – a differnent). While there are several perspectives on hell that could possibly still find a location within historical and biblical orthodoxy, I want to say, for me those positions are unconvincing. I would concur with my friend and colleague, Brian Newman when he wrote on his BLOG:
- I believe in a true heaven and a hell, and I believe that Scripture teaches that each of these lasts for eternity (outside of time);
- I believe that it is only in and through the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Y'shua in Hebrew, 'Isa in Arabic) as the one and only promised Messiah that people "inherit eternal life." Jesus is the Lamb of God (the Christ, Lord) and God by His grace gives people the ability to come to faith in God through Jesus or to not do so. (I find that much of the debate in Calvinism and Arminianism over pre-destination and election is largely a waste of energy.)
- I believe there is much mystery in Scripture about the nature of eternal separation from God. I believe that images of fire, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth are symbols and metaphors for desolation, ultimate isolation and aloneness. I have been greatly helped by C.S. Lewis' understanding of hell in "The Great Divorce" and elsewhere in his writing. I believe that ultimate separation from God is beyond imagination and far more grave than we care to admit.
- I do not know if heaven will be populated with the vast majority of people who have lived through the course of time, nor do I know if hell will be populated with the vast majority of people who have lived through the course of time. The Bible tells us to "enter through the narrow gate" because wide is the way to destruction. It says that a "multitude" from every tribe, nation, and people will be in heaven and that the number is also limited (as represented by the number 144,000). I would argue that the Bible does not treat this as a puzzle to be solved, but rather as a mystery to live within.
- I believe that it is totally and absolutely God's deal to determine people's eternal destiny; God enlists people to be his "evangels" (messengers).
- And finally, I believe that we Evangelicals have gotten terribly distracted by this debate about who is in heaven and who is not. My church here in Denver has split and splintered over this very issue, resulting in unnecessary pain in many people's lives. We Evangelicals have gotten away from our primary calling as "God's sent ones" to announce Jesus' Kingdom by focusing so much energy and attention on what is ultimately a tremendous mystery. It's time to return to being messengers who announce the Kingdom of God.
One last thing – on a positive note, the Bell book has created an opportunity for me/others to articulate a bit more clearly our positions on some important issues. I think that is a good thing.
Rob I see your point. Was it provoking? Yes. Was the Gandhi a “universalistic inference” as you put it or was it more of a who made you judge and jury over Gandhi? If all one sees is universalism in Bells Gandhi story one is missing the whole concept Bell is throwing out there. Again this is my opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong 🙂
Just watched Wright’s video that was suggested by Eric Blauer above and I find myself in a great deal of agreement with him. Thanks again E.
Thanks E. I will watch it. Ernie – thanks for stopping in. I totally agree with the ridicules response by many in the blogosphere. It was utter nonsense. My contention, however, is (and I still would hold to it) that the publisher and Bell were quite intentional with the promo. They intentionally portended a universalistic inference, which was like dry tinder for the Gospel Coalition folk. It did what they had hoped for. That is what I take umbrage with.
Rob, here is NT Wright talking a bit about the whole ‘eternality’ aspect you were poking at:
I think your off on your first point. The “promotional approach” for this book took on a form of its own because of the response it got in the Christian Community. If the “Christians” wouldnt have killed Rob Bell over the promo video than I highly doubt this book would have received much press at all.
As far as I understand them, and I’m probably in their camp a bit more than you are – is that in both cases it is an eternal judgment. I will admit that for me, I at the least want it to be something along those lines because Eternal Conscious Torment scares the hell out of me.
Funny, when I said that there are other perspectives that can find a location within orthodoxy, I was actually thinking of both of those two guys and their positions. As you know, the idea of annihilationism is held by not just a few within our ranks. I just find them missing key marks of eternality that seem to be attached to the discussion.
and FWIW I found most of Bell’s statements on hell to land in the speculative – it’s tough to find a lot of biblical arguments against, but it also seems to me it’s tough to find a lot for. In the end, I don’t think he would deny the reality of heaven, hell, salvation being only through Christ etc. (at least that was my impression after reading – I was one who was interested in the book before the media hubbub)
My disappointment as much as it’s been in Bell has also been in the Gospel Coalition guys who I believe are better and more literate than to project what they want into Bell’s book to save face on proclaiming him a universalist too early. As far as I can tell, either their literacy is questionable or they are intentionally skewing some quotes.
So Rob, judging by some of Brian’s statements that you affirm, I’m curious – would you affirm Stott’s annihilationism or Boyd’s Conditional Immortality as tenable positions?
I’m also curious how you go about filtering through the places where hell is talked about in an attempt to determine what is apocalyptic in nature, what is parabolic, and what is instructive? (i.e. the parable of the rich man & Lazarus I don’t believe is supposed to be instructive on the nature of hell) I’m not asking this in any sense besides that of someone who’s interested in your approach to this.