http://newwaystheology.blogspot.com/2011/03/rob-bell-isnt-universalist-review-of.html
A Review of Love Wins
by Mason Slater
March 23, 2011
I suppose I’ll start where the controversy centered. Is Rob Bell teaching universalism in Love Wins?
Yes.
Or, maybe not.
It sort of depends actually. It seems we decided before hand that Rob must of course be addressing universalism one way or the other, but I don’t think he’s interested in doing that.
So Love Wins then becomes something of a theological Rorschach test.
If you want to read it as promoting universalism you can certainly find ideas and arguments which lead in that direction. If you’re looking for nuances which can frame his argument as being for something besides universalism (like inexclusivism) you can find that as well. Because Love Wins isn’t really about universalism.
Instead Rob is interested in provoking a larger conversation about how we understand heaven and hell, and how that understanding shapes the way we live out our faith today.
Much of the early section of the book is an argument for seeing our hope not as disembodied bliss, but as a new restored creation in which heaven comes to earth and God dwells with us - as seen at the end of Revelation. It certainly has a Bell-like flair, but for the most part the content here is quite familiar to anyone who has read Wittmer’s Heaven Is a Place on Earth or Wright’s Surprised by Hope.
Though never stated directly I think much of his later wrestling with hell has to do with this model of new heaven and new earth. If heaven is a ethereal realm in the clouds where we engage in an eternal church service, then our traditional understanding of hell fits right in as the counterpart. But, if heaven is conceived of as new creation, a future this-worldly life with God which also breaks into the present in all sorts of ways, what does that do to our image of hell?
This impulse, coupled with a pastoral instinct and a new perspective impulse to read passages as radically context bound (including hell/Gehenna passages) leads to a reimagining of what the biblical picture of hell might be.
It also leads to a reimagining of who might be there.
And this is, for many, the controversial part. Because we’ve seen recently that saying heaven will be full of surprises and might just include more people than we’ve been taught is deeply offensive to a number of Christians.
I understand why to a point I suppose, it’s not what most of us have been taught, it doesn’t fit with our theological constructs, and so it challenges us at a level of identity not merely intellect.
Still, it’s saddening to see how many people are angry at the idea that more people could be saved in the end then they had assumed. Disagreeing with it is one thing (I personally wouldn’t go as far with it as Rob seems willing to go, and like any book there were arguments I'd push back on), but why would we act as if we don’t even want it to be true?
I suppose that’s part of the point of Love Wins, Rob is attempting to articulate a better story than the one we’ve been told. I don’t always agree with his retelling, but he’s right to challenge the story we’ve been given because it is often deeply unbiblical and incredibly destructive.
By the end of the book we see that the reason Rob is(n’t) a universalist and the reason that the strongest reaction against him has come from the neo-Calvinist crowd are one and the same. Human freedom. Rob puts a high priority on freedom being an essential part of real love. If God loves us and we choose hell he will let us have it (very C.S. Lewis-esq) but to Rob that isn’t the last word.
Drawing on a number of biblical passages, and some East Orthodox theology, Rob makes the suggestion which allows many to read universalism into the text. What if death isn’t our last chance?
It’s a good question really, and one the Bible isn’t nearly as clear on as we’d like to think. The idea that God wants to save you now, but if you die before you are saved He instantly stops loving you is distasteful to say the least, and more importantly not very fitting to the story we’ve been told about this God.
And this is why people assume if you follow the conclusions Bell comes to it ends in universalism. If we are always given more chances to repent, eventually wouldn't everyone repent? I actually think that no, many wouldn’t (and I think Rob can see this as well in many points in the book) but it certainly is enough to cause some heads to turn.
In a recent interview with CNN Bell stated “I never set out to be controversial, I don’t think it’s a goal that God honors. I don’t think it’s a noble goal.” I think he’s being honest there. Rob has a massive church, numerous best-selling books, the Nooma videos, it’s not like he needs (or seems to want) more attention. In fact, early in Velvet Elvis, he shares a story of how difficult it was for him to process the success of Mars Hill and that he almost left when it became a phenomenon.
Rob no doubt knew that he’d get this sort of reaction from certain figures in the church, but I don’t believe he was attempting too.
This book will cost him. Yes it will end up on the New York Times bestseller list, but in the process he will lose relationships, lose the respect of many evangelicals, lose a hearing with a large part of the church.
Apparently, knowing what would be lost, Rob decided to go forward with this book anyways. Already suspect to many, Rob had to know he would only get one shot and decided to use it on this. Because he thinks opening up the conversation is worth the personal repercussions.
So if these are questions you’ve wrestled with, I’d recommend Love Wins as a starting place, a way of putting it all on the table. However, once you start reconstructing what you do believe about heaven and hell I wouldn’t rely on Bell alone, there are better resources (which I know he'd readily admit). Personally N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope would still be first on my list.
Love Wins is classic Rob Bell. So in that sense, it’s the sort of thing you’d like if you like that sort of thing. Personally I thought it was an excellent read, a provocative bit of theologizing, and a good start to a conversation which we need to be having. It's not the last word, but it's a good first word, and I think that's what Rob intended.
A Review of Love Wins
by Mason Slater
March 23, 2011
I suppose I’ll start where the controversy centered. Is Rob Bell teaching universalism in Love Wins?
Yes.
Or, maybe not.
It sort of depends actually. It seems we decided before hand that Rob must of course be addressing universalism one way or the other, but I don’t think he’s interested in doing that.
So Love Wins then becomes something of a theological Rorschach test.
If you want to read it as promoting universalism you can certainly find ideas and arguments which lead in that direction. If you’re looking for nuances which can frame his argument as being for something besides universalism (like inexclusivism) you can find that as well. Because Love Wins isn’t really about universalism.
Instead Rob is interested in provoking a larger conversation about how we understand heaven and hell, and how that understanding shapes the way we live out our faith today.
Much of the early section of the book is an argument for seeing our hope not as disembodied bliss, but as a new restored creation in which heaven comes to earth and God dwells with us - as seen at the end of Revelation. It certainly has a Bell-like flair, but for the most part the content here is quite familiar to anyone who has read Wittmer’s Heaven Is a Place on Earth or Wright’s Surprised by Hope.
Though never stated directly I think much of his later wrestling with hell has to do with this model of new heaven and new earth. If heaven is a ethereal realm in the clouds where we engage in an eternal church service, then our traditional understanding of hell fits right in as the counterpart. But, if heaven is conceived of as new creation, a future this-worldly life with God which also breaks into the present in all sorts of ways, what does that do to our image of hell?
This impulse, coupled with a pastoral instinct and a new perspective impulse to read passages as radically context bound (including hell/Gehenna passages) leads to a reimagining of what the biblical picture of hell might be.
It also leads to a reimagining of who might be there.
And this is, for many, the controversial part. Because we’ve seen recently that saying heaven will be full of surprises and might just include more people than we’ve been taught is deeply offensive to a number of Christians.
I understand why to a point I suppose, it’s not what most of us have been taught, it doesn’t fit with our theological constructs, and so it challenges us at a level of identity not merely intellect.
Still, it’s saddening to see how many people are angry at the idea that more people could be saved in the end then they had assumed. Disagreeing with it is one thing (I personally wouldn’t go as far with it as Rob seems willing to go, and like any book there were arguments I'd push back on), but why would we act as if we don’t even want it to be true?
I suppose that’s part of the point of Love Wins, Rob is attempting to articulate a better story than the one we’ve been told. I don’t always agree with his retelling, but he’s right to challenge the story we’ve been given because it is often deeply unbiblical and incredibly destructive.
By the end of the book we see that the reason Rob is(n’t) a universalist and the reason that the strongest reaction against him has come from the neo-Calvinist crowd are one and the same. Human freedom. Rob puts a high priority on freedom being an essential part of real love. If God loves us and we choose hell he will let us have it (very C.S. Lewis-esq) but to Rob that isn’t the last word.
Drawing on a number of biblical passages, and some East Orthodox theology, Rob makes the suggestion which allows many to read universalism into the text. What if death isn’t our last chance?
It’s a good question really, and one the Bible isn’t nearly as clear on as we’d like to think. The idea that God wants to save you now, but if you die before you are saved He instantly stops loving you is distasteful to say the least, and more importantly not very fitting to the story we’ve been told about this God.
And this is why people assume if you follow the conclusions Bell comes to it ends in universalism. If we are always given more chances to repent, eventually wouldn't everyone repent? I actually think that no, many wouldn’t (and I think Rob can see this as well in many points in the book) but it certainly is enough to cause some heads to turn.
In a recent interview with CNN Bell stated “I never set out to be controversial, I don’t think it’s a goal that God honors. I don’t think it’s a noble goal.” I think he’s being honest there. Rob has a massive church, numerous best-selling books, the Nooma videos, it’s not like he needs (or seems to want) more attention. In fact, early in Velvet Elvis, he shares a story of how difficult it was for him to process the success of Mars Hill and that he almost left when it became a phenomenon.
Rob no doubt knew that he’d get this sort of reaction from certain figures in the church, but I don’t believe he was attempting too.
This book will cost him. Yes it will end up on the New York Times bestseller list, but in the process he will lose relationships, lose the respect of many evangelicals, lose a hearing with a large part of the church.
Apparently, knowing what would be lost, Rob decided to go forward with this book anyways. Already suspect to many, Rob had to know he would only get one shot and decided to use it on this. Because he thinks opening up the conversation is worth the personal repercussions.
So if these are questions you’ve wrestled with, I’d recommend Love Wins as a starting place, a way of putting it all on the table. However, once you start reconstructing what you do believe about heaven and hell I wouldn’t rely on Bell alone, there are better resources (which I know he'd readily admit). Personally N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope would still be first on my list.
Love Wins is classic Rob Bell. So in that sense, it’s the sort of thing you’d like if you like that sort of thing. Personally I thought it was an excellent read, a provocative bit of theologizing, and a good start to a conversation which we need to be having. It's not the last word, but it's a good first word, and I think that's what Rob intended.
No comments:
Post a Comment