Rob Bell, pastor, author, and speaker in the popular Nooma video series, has just published a book called “Love Wins.” The book is a challenge to Christians to re-think our views of hell, heaven, and salvation.
I haven’t read the book, and I’ve only watched some of this video interview so far – what Bell is communicating, and how he’s communicating it was driving me crazy and I had to take a break. I’m not (as of yet) as troubled by the view of hell – there have historically been various takes on the concept. I’m troubled by what is communicated by at least the first parts of the interview. From my first impressions, which may be far from accurate:
- The foundation for theology is no longer “solo scriptura” but “God is Love” (whatever that means). Salvation, while through Christ is no longer connected with faith, so “solo fidei” is gone as well. The discussion has decisively moved outside of reformation/protestant theology.
- Bell says that the conversation he’s joining is about ‘what really matters’ (such as, heaven, hell, and flavored coffee syrups, I suppose, depending on your perspective) has been going on for thousands of years. Rob also says that the image of heaven as a place with streets of gold and everyone driving a Ferrari is an inaccurate cartoon image – of course streets of gold comes from scripture, and he adds sports cars to make the biblical perspective seem absurd and then denies it. Given that the foundation for thought is whatever he thinks “God is love” means, it isn’t a surprise that he’s saying his book is simply another addition to the conversation, as were the gospels and John’s Revelation.
I’m curious about Bells views on canon – what makes a writing part of the Bible? Is the canon open, still being added to today? Is Bell’s book as authoritative as the Bible? is the Bible authoritative, or just some other voices about stuff that “matters”?
That would help with everything – if scripture isn’t inherently any more authoritative than any other voice, then we can disregard scriptural teachings as just suggestions that we can pick and choose from as we build our part of the discussion.
The idea communicated to me so far that we all experience “hell” every day on earth is packed so full of presuppositions – it presumes that “hell” is simply synonymous for “thinks I don’t like” or “things I think are awful.”
Regardless of how we’ve now redefined “hell,” the statement means that God has sentenced his people to live in hell as much – or more than those rebelling against Him. This is all in order to make God more like what we consider “love” to mean in “God is love.”
- I’m a bit confused, because it doesn’t seem like a loving God would sentence 12 million people, including many Jesus-followers, a worse hell than Hitler. There is no real justice in this life. If God is love, if God is just, if God is holy, suddenly having real, direct consequences for evil makes sense – and there’s no real, direct consequences for evil in this life, or Job’s friends would have been right, and Job’s suffering was because of his sin – but one point of the book of Job is that they were wrong.
- I also disagree with Rob’s statement that Jesus was more concerned with heaven on earth than heaven later. “Your kingdom come” is in the Lord’s Prayer, certainly. We are to be a force for good in this world, and God’s kingdom is here, among us. But looking at the parables and the sermon on the mount, it’s largely based on storing up treasures NOT on earth, but somewhere else which is contrasted with this life. The parables are often about punishment/reward at the end, after all action is complete. Jesus also talked about how things are different in heaven than they are now – such as not marrying. The already-not-yet tension of the Kingdom being here in some ways but not in others is a strong theme throughout the New Testament.
If this hell (per Bell’s view) is the best heaven we ever get, then to follow Jesus’ teaching is to forbid marrying. It also means there is no hope for resurrection or future life. No wedding feast. No “then we shall see face to face.” This all, of course, would be to contradict other very clear teachings in the Bible.
But then again, if the scripture is simply some old fashioned blokes with childish cartoony ideas that we’ve outgrown, then disobeying what Jesus and his apostles taught isn’t a big deal, and we are free to do and believe as we see right in our own eyes. (This is what the people of Noah’ time were exterminated for by God in the flood, but again it’s not relevant if the Bible is no more relevant than anything else.)
I’m not condemning Bell or anyone else. As I stated, this is just my first impression and may well be wrong. I know people who have condemned Bell unjustly for some time. I think people ought to have a chance to correct themselves and clarify miscommunication. I think we ought to be gracious with each other, and point out error in order that correction may take place rather than just going around condemning people we dislike, misunderstand, or disagree with.
It may be that I have a problem with how he communicates, and he’s not actually overwriting the Bible with his idea of what “God is love” means (and I wonder what it might mean when separated from the biblical context) – it may be that he’s not exalting himself (and you and me) to be on par with scripture (which is self-described as God-breathed).
I’m generally concerned with what the foundational principles and logic are, and what the logical end is when those ideas are carried out. I’d like to see what Bells ideas are, and what they open his followers up to. I appreciate Bell’s ability to make people re-think, re-consider, challenge presuppositions. When this is done however, the question must be asked: what direction are we heading in now, and under the same re-consideration, is it better or worse than what was previously believed?
At this point I’m hesitant to give Rob Bell money by buying this book, but it’s likely not available cheap and used yet – any suggestions?
