If you have been holed up in a cave somewhere then you may not have heard that there is a book out called “Love Wins” by Rob Bell. It has had a lot of media attention, controversy and debate on the subject of hell. At first I really did not care, but as the volume of debate and discussion grew louder, I felt as a pastor and a believer I needed to read this for myself. If you are looking for a deep theological discussion or debate then check out Mark Driscoll’s resurgence page to what so many theologians and pastors are saying about the book. (For the more theological heart read Robert Gundry take on it). My aim is merely to give you a summary and clarity of the book, areas that of great encouragement, along with areas of great concern and positions Bell takes.
Bell begins his book with a WWII Blitzkrieg of questions about God, hell, love, etc… I mean really there are a lot of questions, it was like an ADD festival of questions. I understand that one of his purposes was to get us to question, to think about the things that we are “told” to believe. I totally agree with Bell, Scripture indicates that we should, “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1) Why should we question and test the things people spout out? Because there are false teachers and false teaching in our midst and we must be careful (Just turn the TV on and listen to some of these televangelist!). Bell asks the question: Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal tormet for things they did in their few finite years of life? (pg 2) In Bell’s words, “Are millions of people going to Hell over tens of thousands of years the best that God can do? Within this framework he not only addresses the issues with an eternal punishment type of hell but the issues he has with the biblical doctrines of predestination and election. (He present an Arminian position----also you can watch his trailer here) For the sake of keeping this condensed I will not cover those doctrines in this summary.
So let’s jump into the two main subjects:
Heaven:
Bell describes heaven as: “Here is the New there” arguing that the gospel was never about just “getting to heaven”. The misconception of leaving earth and getting out of here was the goal for so many Christians. He asks the question, "why would God create us simply to GO somewhere else?" I ask myself the same question when people are eager to get out of here like a That heaven is full of floating babies in diapers, and harps strumming with giant Donald Trump like mansions on every corner is really absurd. He cites OT passages to indicate that they were awaiting a kingdom or age to come, to arrive HERE! Thy kingdom come, not thy kingdom leave! He says, “When the gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will “get to heaven” that reduces the gospel to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer and into the club.” (pg 178) Keeping us grounded on the fact that so many people focus on leaving rather than cultivating and sowing the Kingdom here and now. I really enjoyed this as I feel many believers (esp. in the traditional church) are still stuck on this type of thought process. If you want an read on heaven and the kingdom read N.T. Wrights “Surprised by Hope”.
This is my greatest area of concern in the whole book. This is obviously where all the controversy and debate is focused on. Let me stop and say that there are many areas in the book that I agreed with and enjoyed. Many visions that Bell has that had me thinking: yes this is a problem and yes this needs to change in the hearts of God’s people (i.e. the arrogance of the “inness” of churches, the gospel being reduced to just going to heaven, or Jesus merely saves sinners). When it came to his view on hell, I completely disagree with him. He sums his point up by stating, “At the heart of this perspective [God reaches all people] is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”
Bell uses passages that to him indicate his overall point that everyone will be saved or reconciled:
1. 1 Timothy 2:3-4-“ This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
2. Acts 3:21-“…God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.
3. Colossians 1:19-“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven…”
He also cites OT verses that indicate that God is more interested in restoration not destruction. (Ezekiel 16; Jeremiah 32; Jeremiah 5)
With these passages in place, he asks then "Does God get what He wants?"
Greek and Context:
Bell also has a problem identifying his Greek verbs and using passages within context. I cannot tell you how important it is to know the context of a passage. This seems to be the most common mistake believers do when pulling verses from all over the place to make their point (Unbelievers also when they want to throw the Bible back in the faces of believers). Most are more worried about making their point (or interpretation)that they want to make will fit the verse they are using. We call that (for you seminary peeps) eisegesis. Bell does this with the above passages and several others which is very disappointing but not new.
In regards to Greek, Bell uses Matthew 25:31-46 as an example to illustrate his point that hell is NOT a forever ,eternal type of torment or punishment. He says that the Greek word for eternal is “aion”. Aion has many meanings but he states that it can mean a period of time, with a beginning and end. It is commonly translated “age” in NIV, ESV and pretty much any English bible. So when you read in Matthew 25:41 where Jesus says the goats, “Depart from me…into the eternal fire prepared for you…” he means that it will only be for a period of time, NOT forever. The fire will not last forever; it will only be a period of time. He states that to the biblical writers, the notion of forever would be foreign to them. He writes more than what I am giving you about and sounds much more convincing but I do not want this to be a research paper. Again in Matthew 25:46, Jesus says, “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” So that I do not write an entire thesis, here is an excellent link that describes the fallacy in Bell’s treatment of the Greek word aion.
He finally argues towards the back of the book that to teach that God would send someone to an eternal torment indicates that God "in essence becomes fundamentally a different being to them in that moment of death, a different being to them forever. A loving heavenly father who will go to extraordinary lengths to have a relationship with them...in the blink of an eye become a cruel, mean viscous tormentor..."(pg 173). Do we really want a God like that?
To give some clarity on what Bell advocates I am including the position taken by Evangelical Arminian (based on his book, which in my opinion is what Bell seems to be) Clark Pinnock who said:
1. that God's attributes are subservient to his love and that his purpose is to save everyone. (Love does win)
2. Salvation is dependent on the free will of individuals and is grounded in a notion that God's making grace universally accessible to those who respond to the offer of it even apart from explicit faith in Christ (Read Bell's pg. 157-159)
Bell is crafty, and he is smart. He knows how to write, to get you to think. The book has some areas that I am passionate to see the church be a part of. He tugs on the emotional heart strings and at times I can openly admit that I felt my heart break thinking about people I know being punished forever. But I was not called to submit to mere emotions, my guide, my instruction, my correction and my standard comes from God's word.
I know that I was not able to cover everything and that's okay. You may disagree with my analysis which is also okay. We forget that as believers we can still love each other even in the midst of not agreeing with one another. I did not write up a defense for everything because it is a summary and again I feel like there are plenty of better resources that deal with this. If you really want to know how I feel read this excellent article by Carl Trueman about theological controversies (I know there is a lot of reading!). I hope this helps.
Be Blessed
No comments:
Post a Comment