What you think matters is the blog of the Newfrontiers Theology Forum and I’ve been consistently impressed by the wit and sharpness of the writing and the helpfulness of the content. Here are some examples that stood out for me:
So whether you agree with what they say or not, I’d urge you to subscribe to and engage with this blog for the building up of your theological faculties.
“If our hearts be not rocks, this love of Christ should affect us. Behold love that passeth knowledge!”
Read it all.
“Baptism is a cross, and ‘our old self was crucified with him,’ for we were ‘united with him in a death like his’ and again, ‘we were buried therefore with him by baptism unto death.’…For as Christ died on the cross, so do we in baptism, not as the flesh but as to sin. Behold two deaths. He died as to the flesh. In our case, the old self was buried and the new self arose, made conformable to the likeness of his death….For baptism is nothing else than the putting to death of the baptised and his rising again.”
Theodoret of Cyr – Interpretation of Hebrews 6
“We are buried with him in baptism, and we rise with him, so it is not possible for us to enjoy the gift of baptism again…Our former self was crucified with him in baptism by receiving the type of death…This baptism of ours…is one only, for the reason that it involves the type of the saving passion and resurrection and prefigures for us the resurrection to come.”
Photius – Fragments on the epistle to the Hebrews 6.6
“Christ was crucified once for all, and we have been crucified together with him through baptism.”
Tertullian – The Chaplet
“When we are about to enter the water, and, as a matter of fact, even a short while before, we declare in the presence of the congregation before the bishop that we renounce the devil, his pomps and his angels. After that, we are immersed in the water three times, making a somewhat fuller pledge than the Lord has prescribed in the gospel.”
I have a question for any of my readers who ascribes to an infant baptism position, because there is something I’ve never understood despite having read a fair number of books outlining this view. I understand the view of one covenant of grace but what I don’t understand is this: How can baptism which is indisputably a type of death and resurrection, a death to self and sin, how can that possibly apply in the case of an infant?
Whatever the gain of infant baptism, isn’t there a deep loss in the one being baptised not being able to consciously and willingly identify with the death and resurrection of Christ and at the same time see this action as their own death to sin and self, and that it is also a sign of their hope of salvation now and in the future?
I’ve attended several infant baptisms of wonderful faith filled parents and I just can’t see how this aspect of baptism has any genuine application and presence in the rite at all. So if anyone has a good answer or can point me to a good answer I’d be interested in reading it.
Today then I’m going to call on the services of well respected Bible scholar Craig Blomberg to help make the case for being baptised.
“Although theologians continue to discuss what might be implied by household baptisms in the New Testament and to what extent parallels between circumcision as the initiatory rite in the old covenant and baptism as the counterpart in the new might justify infant baptism, it remains undeniable that the only unambiguous examples of people being baptized in the New Testament are of those who are old enough to believe. And a passage like Romans 6:4 makes sense only when immersion is assumed. Just as people are laid out “six feet under,” the baptizand lays down under the water, but then like Christ rises again to symbolize his or her new spiritual life. And the Great Commission commands this be done to all disciples (Matt. 28:19).”
“But I do want to insist that, if not normative, believers’ baptism by immersion as soon as feasible after conversion was the normal practice of the New Testament church and it should be ours also.”
“With or without words, baptismal immersion testifies to our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. With words, with the appropriate “pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21), produced by already existing saving faith, baptism includes a promise to follow Jesus all the days of our lives.”
Read the whole thing here (HT: Justin Taylor)
Randy Alcorn gives his views first on Mark Galli’s God Wins and Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell saying,
“How does Erasing Hell compare to God Wins? I would describe Erasing Hell as passionate, biblically reasoned and pastoral. God Wins is historically rooted, theologically reasoned and journalistically precise. Someone who prefers thoughtfully presented theology and history might favor Galli’s book, while someone who enjoys careful exposition of key biblical passages and likes to connect with an author on an emotional level might prefer Chan’s.”
And Doug Paul reflects on how our thoughts on hell taken to their logical conclusion should be a massive motivator to provide food for the hungry and invest in mercy ministries.
For pictures about what life looks like for them, have a look at Postcards from Hell, images from the world’s 60 most fragile nations and see how many are in Africa!
“When I was in India, Christian apologist Prakesh Yesudian told me of a conversation he had with a Hindu about Gandhi, who is much revered there…
‘Is Gandhi in heaven?’ the Hindu asked. ‘Heaven would be a very poor place without Gandhi in it.’
‘Well sir,’ Prakesh answered, ‘you must at least believe in Heaven then. And apparently you have done some thinking about what would qualify someone for Heaven. Tell me, what kind of people go to Heaven?’
‘Good people go to heaven,’ he responded.
‘But this idea of what is a good person is very unclear to me. What is good?’
In typical Hindu fashion he replied, ‘Good and bad are relative, there is no clear definition.’
‘If that is true, sir, that goodness is relative and can’t be defined how is it that you assume Gandhi is good and should be in heaven?’
Either Gandhi fulfils some external standard of goodness, thus qualifying for heaven, or goodness is relative and therefore a meaningless term when applied to anyone, including Gandhi. Both cannot be true at the same time.”
Jesus teaches us that God alone is good (Mt 19:17), that the standard is set by His character and goodness. Goodness is indeed relative but it stands in relation to the goodness and holiness of God. So we must obtain somehow the goodness, the righteousness of God either by our own effort (which if we’re at all honest seems highly unlikely) or it seems that it is God alone that can qualify someone else as good and that comes through faith in Christ.
So the question of the whereabouts of Gandhi comes down to did he have faith in Christ because we know Gandhi knew about Christ. He doesn’t fall into the category of never heard, never knew, never lived long enough to find out. For Gandhi the question becomes much clearer, did he trust in Christ?
And the answer? Well ultimately we have no idea, but I’m not sure I have great grounds to be confident that he did. So is Gandhi in heaven? Actually, chances are, if I’m to take the Bible seriously at all (excluding for the moment the possibility of post-mortem chances to place faith in Christ), probably not.
The other Sunday I was at my parents house and as I always do, I was perusing Dad’s shelves for books. This time I went searching for books on hell and found this gem.
Is there a Hell? A Symposium by Leaders of Religious Thought. The only notable contributor whose name I knew was FB Meyer. Published by Cassell in 1913.
Here are the chapter headings:
1913. Let that date sink in for a moment. Nearly 100 years ago they were debating hell. Before the internet, before TV. Before Rob Bell’s grandmother got her freaky painting (you have to read the book), before two world wars, before even sliced bread for heaven’s sake – there were debates about the nature of hell. Evangelicals then did not agree and funnily enough, they still don’t. Plus ça change.
I’ll try and post some quotes because it’s absolutely fascinating to realise that in some senses 100 years later we’re having the exact same argument. There are some interesting common themes and differences amongst all the contributors. For most heaven and hell is a spiritual and not material place, so in heaven we are disembodied souls and hell likewise. Even defenders of hell struggle with the idea of God ‘tormenting’ souls or conceiving it as active punishment. A common refrain is that heaven is a state not a place. We hear the observation that hell is not preached much in sermons and behind all of the questions from all of the authors is the one big question that Rob Bell asks:
‘What is God like?’
A few observations. It becomes harder to argue that there is one classical, historical, undebated evangelical view of hell. Not all of the contributors to Is there a hell? were evangelicals but a good many were. There have been, there are and there will be anxieties, questions, doubts and uncertainties about hell. We should get over that, allow there to be space for both the questions and some degree of latitude in the answers because it seems to me that good faithful Christians have not come to the same conclusion. I’m not at all sure that hell should be an issue of division for us.
Rob Bell is not saying anything new, we’ve been here before – we can handle this debate better. One good example of a gracious response is this quickly published book by Michael Wittmer (HT: Challies).
The posts to read that others have written
Posts I’ve written
So I don’t think it matters what Bell says from here on in, I don’t think (barring some incredible recantation) that he’ll be listened to or believed. Judgements have been made, positions have been taken, the die has been cast. Rob Bell is no longer (if, of course, he ever was) sound.
So Rob Bell can say, ‘I believe in hell’ but it won’t matter. It’s not the right sort of hell. The fire isn’t hot enough and it goes out eventually.
‘I believe in judgement.’ Sorry, not the right sort of judgement. Not eternal judgement like the sort we’re dishing out. In your view of justice people can be rehabilitated. Sorry.
‘I believe God wants everyone to go to heaven and is able to do it’. Sorry, that can’t be right.
‘I believe in Jesus, he is the only way of salvation’. Ah yes but not the right sort of belief in the right sort of Jesus or the right sort of salvation.
You don’t want to come across as making those sort of defences, it’s really looks bad. Bell’s reformed opponents should be careful lest they back themselves into the narrow-minded, increasingly tightly defined, small, self-righteous corner.
I don’t believe that’s what his most well known opponents think, it’s not (I hope) their heart. But it’s not far off how they’re coming across and that’s not good.
Bell is accused of being a universalist that essentially everyone will end up in heaven and at some indeterminate point in the future that there will be no one left in hell. Now its perfectly reasonable to have a good healthy debate about how to interpret key biblical texts, to wrestle with the questions this raises about the nature of God, sin, justice and eternity but those debates rarely make it onto TV networks and front pages of news magazines. This one has.
Take this video as an example with an interview with Rob Bell. You have Al Mohler and Justin Taylor appearing narrow and talking about hell and you have Rob Bell talking about love and heaven.
So this is how this whole thing can look. On the one hand you have a preacher who is being called to account because he wants everyone to go to heaven and more than that it seems like he’s talking about a God who wants everyone to go to heaven too. And that’s bad is it?
In the other corner we have some people who sound very disappointed by the fact that not more people are going to burn in hell. Now I’m saying that Bell’s opponents think this but it can easily sound like they do.
Who are those angry people who keep on talking about judgement and burning and hell? Remind me again why I would want to listen to them? If they both say they’re preaching good news who are you going to listen to?
Rob Bell is not great at providing much here, there are few references, a tiny bibliography compared to what he actually must have read and studied and limited clues. Limited not none.
And it’s the influences that we can gather that make this whole debate really intriguing and intriguing as to why Bell has had to face so much flak. Given who has influenced Bell the question is how did he get these people so wrong because they’re not under the same scrutiny? Or is there another reason why Bell is the lightning rod to all this criticism?
So who are the influences behind Love Wins? It’s a surprising mix.
Robert Farrar Capon: Go read the wikipedia article, it’s essentially a quote from Capon on hell. In the light of all this – fascinating. CS Lewis, Mark Baker, Tim Keller, Richard Rohr, Huston Smith and NT Wright. I’ve linked the ones I knew nothing about.
So Capon on Jesus, Lewis on hell, Baker on the cross, Keller on the prodigal son, Rohr on spiritual growth, Smith on God and Wright on resurrection and new creation. I don’t know much about Capon, Rohr, Baker or Smith. I’ve not read any of their works and no nothing about their lives or ministry.
However the remaining three are in a different league altogether. CS Lewis is not always agreed with, he’s respected and accepted. He is often quoted and the general opinion seems to be that he’s one of the good guys. Keller we know is one of the good guys. NT Wright is a bit like Lewis in that he’s not always agreed with but he’s too sharp, says too many good things and is a man of faith and so he’s respected and accepted.
But what has been the outcome for Rob Bell? In terms of the polarising debate and battle line in American evangelicalism he has been cast out of the one group. Not only is he not respected or accepted but even his faith is in question. How did Rob Bell manage to read Lewis, Keller and Wright and end up with a view that gets him castigated and reviled? That takes it’s own special sort of genius.
If you read this and follow the link to listen to audio of the panel discussion you get a sense of the strength of feeling there is about this book. As Adrian Warnock mentions,
“Yet, in the book, as Keller points out, he is positively scornful of many traditional evangelical perspectives.”
And it’s what Keller says that I find particularly interesting. One of the few books that Bell references is Keller’s Prodigal God and in fact the penultimate chapter contains an extended Bell paraphrase of that book with one or two additions. And as I pointed out Bell and Keller both share the same influence in CS Lewis and you can hear that while Keller has some issues with the content it is what he perceives to be Bell’s attitude that he is most disappointed by. In fact he uses the word disappointment several times I think.
Reviewers like Kevin DeYoung who has produced the most thorough negative review and who chaired the panel discussion gets very hot under the collar about this and there is the real feeling of personal offence here. These guys feel attacked and so are responding very defensively. They think their views are what Bell is taking aim at and you can see why but I’m not so sure that they are who Bell is taking aim at. Think Terry Jones not Tim Keller. But Tim Keller is disappointed, he feels his views are included and for that Bell must take responsibility for what he has written. (more…)
I’ll go along with that! HT: Steven Holmes
I think Rob Bell poses some good questions and there have been some good responses. There have been a fair number of bad responses too and again part of the reason to continue to think these things through is so that I don’t end up making a bad response in a bad way. Which is why love has lost in much of what has been said and meanness has won.
I’m currently reading Love Wins and as ever because Rob Bell is a good writer it is a good read and there’s much to commend it. Really. Part of what frustrates me about the whole debate as seen so far is an inability to simply disagree but a compulsion to move from that point to denunciation. I’m not sure that’s strictly necessary.
Take this from John MacArthur:
“Has Bell shown any more commitment to gospel truth, or any more devotion to the principle of biblical authority than Hitchens or Chopra?”
Which is frankly a ridiculous question.
And the point of his radio series as one of the commenters on his blog says, “Hence the reason for this series; to show how the god Bell believes in, the christ Bell believes in, is NOT the God of the Bible nor the Christ of the Bible…And that God and Christ cannot save.”
So anyone who listens to Bell and trusts in the Christ that Bell preaches is preaching a false gospel. Doug Wilson calls him a false teacher. We just don’t need to go that far (do we?) and it’s those sort of reactions that put a Christian debate on the cover of Time magazine.
More helpful would be reasonable engagement. I’d love to see Keller debate with Bell, I think they disagree but I think Keller would engage with the ideas. I’d buy that DVD.
Interestingly Adrian Warnock (who has come up with a spectrum of belief on this – missing a few options I think) is debating with Rob Bell on the Unbelievable radio programme. That should be well worth listening to.
Anyway there’ll be more on Bell and Hell as I continue to read the book and think through this issue.
;
I also note his sense of humour, self-deprecation and commendation of those who work for him. Good leadership whatever you think of his politics.
I guess the answer to that question depends on what you think should happen to racist, sexual pervert who believed in reincarnation. For that, according to a new biography of Gandhi is exactly what he was.
Gandhi the racist?
“Although Gandhi’s nonviolence made him an icon to the American civil-rights movement, Mr. Lelyveld shows how implacably racist he was toward the blacks of South Africa. “We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs,” Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of Indians settled there. “We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.”
As Rob Bell says, ‘A racist would be miserable in the world to come’ (p34)
Gandhi the pervert?
“Yet he could also be vicious to Manu, whom he on one occasion forced to walk through a thick jungle where sexual assaults had occurred in order for her to retrieve a pumice stone that he liked to use on his feet. When she returned in tears, Gandhi “cackled” with laughter at her and said: “If some ruffian had carried you off and you had met your death courageously, my heart would have danced with joy.”
Gandhi on reincarnation
“To a Hindu who asked how his co-religionists could ever return to villages from which they had been ethnically cleansed, Gandhi blithely replied: “I do not mind if each and every one of the 500 families in your area is done to death.” What mattered for him was the principle of non-violence, and anyhow, as he told an orthodox Brahmin, he believed in reincarnation.”
Now why post all of that? For a couple of reasons, firstly no person not even our great icons are perfect and therefore will face judgement – Gandhi included. Secondly, as Rob Bell insists we don’t know for sure what has happened to Gandhi so be wary of definitive statements as if we are the ones who judge. Thirdly, God’s grace can reach someone who is a racist, pervert and believes in reincarnation and save them to the uttermost. Whether it has or not, time will tell.
Here is some of what Parker said:
Talking of the explanation for fossils: “In this view, God had apparently hidden fossils in the rocks to tempt geologists to faithlessness, a ridiculous argument sadly still wheeled out by some creationists today.” (p122)
On scientific progress: “Each time someone proposes a different view on the accepted mechanisms (most of which are explanations for new observations), creationists pop up to say that this refutes evidence for evolution altogether. This is not the way to make intellectual progress.” (p133)
On responses to evolution: “As evolutionists continued to present their reliable, scientifically validated data, religious factions tried all sorts of tricks to undermine evolution. Some were dishonest and all were devious.” (p231)
On the use of the word ‘theory’: “A cunning creationist would argue that Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory is just one of many that account for life on earth, fraudulently detracting from the achievements of these great scientists and at the same time misleading the public.” (p295)
On science education: “They are perfectly entitled to believe this [a 6000 year old earth], of course – faith is faith – but in doing so they are turning their back on evolution which we know to be factual. Crank philosophy results. These ‘creationists’, or fundamentalists, become harmful to science, however, when they concoct theories that reinterpret the evidence, and then advocate the teaching of these in schools.” (p301)
On the impact of creationism: “But come on, all you advocates of the Bible’s every word: if you believe simply because your faith tells you so, then just accept that faith is your only argument. This would be far more dignified than childishly mangling the facts and concocting a dishonourable theory into which they can be stuffed. It’s no wonder that scientists will fail to take such theories seriously; and worse than that, the scientific world will begin to label religion as unintelligent and unreasonable. That’s religion in general – even the more rational approaches to faith and the divine…” (p304)
Why point all that out? I’m sure there is room to disagree with Dr Parker here but simply put if that is the view you hold you need to know what you’re up against. In the field of apologetics creationists need a game changer, indisputable scientific evidence. It’s no wonder no one wants to debate with them, not because of the quality of the science but because of the deeply held view that creationism is anti-science why give cranks the oxygen of publicity? It would be (in their view) akin to me opening up my pulpit to the residents of the asylum, why do it?
It’s now wonder that people like Karl Giberson writes things like this.
“Science is not a sinister enterprise aimed at destroying faith. It’s an honest exploration of the wonderful world that God created. We are often asked to think about what Jesus would do, if he lived among us today. Who would Jesus vote for? What car would he drive? To these questions we should add “What would Jesus believe about origins?” And the answer? Jesus would believe evolution, of course. He cares for the Truth.”
I hold very little hope for creationism as a successful apologetic without some startling breakthrough. What do you think?
However even though (from all I’ve read about what I’m about to read) I think I’ll have some disagreements with Rob Bell I’m not prepared to join the ‘junk him’ brigade and consign him to the evangelical scrap-heap. I’m not yet prepared to say as John Piper (I think unwisely) tweeted, ‘Farewell Rob Bell’.
Listen to this – That little audio demonstrates how good Rob Bell is at communication but he’s also pretty clear about what he believes. Now, he might not mean exactly the same things in all the same ways about all those things as me but I think heaven is not going to be full of people who had identical theology before they got to heaven. And remember no-one knows who is populating heaven bar God and those already there but I think someone who believes in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as the way to the Father is likely to be there.
And assuming Rob still holds to the beliefs he articulates in the sermon The Goat has left the building (you can find a link in Matt Hosier’s post, link below), well he’d be welcome to preach that in my pulpit even if we disagree about post-mortem chances of salvation.
Here are some more interesting and well worth reading posts about the issue assuming you’ve not grown tired, fed-up or bored of the whole thing:
“Bell continues in that chapter to say that hell is getting what we want. This is simply another way of saying “Hell’s door is locked on the inside”–something I think C. S. Lewis said. (Or it may be someone’s summary of Lewis’ The Great Divorce.)”
and also…
“While reading Love Wins I kept thinking “This sounds like C. S. Lewis!” In his Acknowledgments Bell thanks someone for ‘suggesting when I was in high school that I read C. S. Lewis.’”
Keller also clearly draws on CS Lewis, as of course, do many of us. What seems to be different here with Bell is that of the offer of ongoing post-death opportunities to be reconciled to God. I’m not sure either Lewis or Keller are saying that.
*I know it’s slightly redundant after the massive amount of reviews already for Love Wins but I do now have a copy to read and will publish some thoughts in due course*
Reviews
Let me know where you see a more positive or affirming review of the book. But of course it has caused much reflection on hell even in The Guardian so here is some of the reaction and so on.
The issue is why can’t some Christians take the good things and junk the bad from a book or a leader, why does it have to be a wholesale approach, or at what point does it or should it become a wholesale approach?
This sort of question has been articulated by Krish Kandiah who says,
“Sadly, these critics consider a quotation an endorsement of someone’s entire theological system. But just because I quote NT Wright, does not mean I affirm his views on paedo-baptism. Quoting Wayne Grudem does not mean I believe Global Warming is a myth or I share his views on the millennium. Quoting Brian McLaren and Lesslie Newbigin does not mean I endorse all of their views. I have yet to meet an evangelical who is not a fan of CS Lewis – his books are cited and recommended almost universally, yet his views on salvation and hell are pretty similar to the accusations being made against Rob Bell. Is it fair to write off the whole of someone’s body of work because you disagree with one part? Hasn’t finding truth in people’s work and commending it got biblical warrant even if you have disagreements elsewhere? (the Apostle Paul can quote pagan prophets approvingly in Acts 17, and in his letter to Titus.) How can we help people to express their appreciation without being afraid of being branded a heretic by a McCarthian witchhunt?”
Good point. We all do this but sometimes it seems someone pushes things too far. But surely we can still learn from what is good and in Rob Bell’s case (as sometimes with Brian McLaren) it is that they ask good questions in provocative ways even if they come up with bad answers provocatively put.
So here are a few more web offerings in reaction to the current furore over hell sparked by Rob Bell’s forthcoming book.
There are some interesting perspectives on both sides that I’d not considered before but I think it’s important to remember that there is unlikely to be a single or simple knock-down winning argument here and what is needed is pastoral wisdom, discretion and if possible some catechesis.
Infant baptists bequeath us nominal Christians who don’t believe the Gospel while baptists who plunge too easily bequeath us believers who are not disciples and the latter isn’t always an improvement on the former.
*Update* Thanks to my friend Ian I’ve now a second review, this time by author Greg Boyd. And this adds to intrigue to the mystery.*
In other developments The Gospel Coalition has announced it’s adding a panel discussion on the topic of hell at its national conference this year. Tim Keller is on the panel which is not surprising because of his role in TGC but in the light of Keller’s thoughts on hell is certainly intriguing.
What is remarkable is that this debate in the US has even caught the attention of national media. It’s hard to imagine that happening in the UK unless the issue in question involved women or gays.
Scot McKnight lays out a spectrum of Christian beliefs about the downside of the afterlife. Where are you and where’s the line for heresy?
In a remarkable bit of foresight, just this week at a Newfrontiers Evangelists summit Greg Haslam was booked to speak on the doctrine of hell. When the audio is available I’ll stick a link up.
Some observations from Piper and Keller. Firstly what I think is a very astute observation from Piper.
“What sinners want is not hell but sin. That hell is the inevitable consequence of unforgiven sin does not make the consequence desirable. It is not what people want—certainly not what they “most want.” Wanting sin is no more equal to wanting hell than wanting chocolate is equal to wanting obesity. Or wanting cigarettes is equal to wanting cancer.”
I think that’s right.
Some interesting affirmations and conclusions from Keller.
“We run from the presence of God and therefore God actively gives us up to our desire (Romans 1:24, 26.) Hell is therefore a prison in which the doors are first locked from the inside by us and therefore are locked from the outside by God (Luke 16:26.) Every indication is that those doors continue to stay forever barred from the inside. Though every knee and tongue in hell knows that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11,) no one can seek or want that Lordship without the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3.This is why we can say that no one goes to hell who does not choose both to go and to stay there. What could be more fair than that?”
And from Out of Ur here’s an interesting reaction to John 14:6
Let me make my case. In reading some of the multitude of posts about Rob Bell in recent days, I discovered the following.
I came across Tom Batterson who as a bookseller has read an advance copy of Love Wins and quotes from it. Let me share those quotes.
“Could God say to someone truly humbled broken and desperate ‘sorry too late?’ Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in only to hear God say through the key hole ‘Doors locked, sorry If only you had been here earlier, I could have done something but now its too late.”
Now let me quote Tim Keller from The Reason for God (p76).
“Modern people inevitably think that hell works like this: God gives us time, but if we haven’t made the right choices by the end of our lives, he casts our souls into hell for all eternity. As the poor souls fall through space, they cry out for mercy, but God says, ‘Too late! You had your chance! Now you will suffer!’”
Can you spot the difference? Not sure I can. Batterson then quotes what he sees as the final position Rob Bell comes to.
“… In speaking of the expansive, extraordinary, infinite love of God there is always the danger of neglecting the very real consequences of God’s love. Namely God’s desire and intention to see things become everything they were intended to be. For this to unfold, God must say about a number of acts and to those who would continue to do them ‘Not here you won’t.’ Love demands freedom. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.”
“The people on the bus from hell in Lewis’ parable would rather have their ‘freedom’, as they define it, than salvation. Their delusion is that, if they glorified God, they would somehow lose power and freedom, but in a supreme and tragic irony, their choice has ruined their own potential for greatness. Hell is, as Lewis says, ‘the greatest monument to human freedom.’ As Romans 1:24 says, God ‘gave them up to…their desires’. All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?” (p79)
“There are only two kinds of people – those who say to God, ‘thy will be done’ to God or those to whom God in the end says, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn’t be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it.” (The Problem of Pain)
It’s fine to disagree with them all, but perhaps things would have been different had he an endorsement from Keller instead of Brian McLaren! We shall see.
So we’re all having our opinion on the theological soundness of Rob Bell. He’s plenty misunderstood. Let me give you a couple of examples. Here’s a talk by Adrian Birks I heard which I thought was a very fair, thoughtful review of the theology in Velvet Elvis.
And Velvet Elvis provides a good example of how Bell can easily be misunderstood. Here’s a very thorough review of Velvet Elvis by Andy Robinson. In Velvet Elvis Bell discusses our view of doctrine whether it is like a spring in a trampoline or a brick in a wall and uses the virgin birth as an example. Can you remove a doctrine and still know God?
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?” (Page 26 – Velvet Elvis)
In Robinson’s review he reacts like a brick in a wall but as Birks points out this is a red herring. Because while Robinson reacts as if Bell has rejected the virgin birth Bell doesn’t actually deny this doctrine at all. Here’s the relevant bit from Rob Bell’s church theology…
“We believe these longings found their fulfilment in Jesus the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, mysteriously God having become flesh.”
Because Bell asks provocative questions and deals mostly with the questions that speak to the angst of the post-modern 20 and 30 something, he is often ambiguous and very open to being misunderstood. Contrary to what you might think I’m not actually trying to defend Rob Bell (not my place to do so) just trying to illustrate how he is a rod for theological lightning strikes.
I’ve read plenty of people saying how ‘unsurprised they are by this because of his theological trajectory’ a phrase I’ve heard several times. I have no idea what my theological trajectory is but I’m open to learning and growing and moving. I’m trusting God that this will be in a good direction.
So let’s briefly just see what Mars Hill Church theological statement says. Firstly it affirms the fall,
“The enemy tempted the first humans, and darkness and evil entered the story through human sin and are now a part of the world. This devastating event resulted in our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming.”
It affirms that Jesus is God’s only answer to the fall,
“Yet his path of suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection has brought hope to all creation. Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus.”
Interestingly it says little about future judgement but let us reserve future judgement until Rob Bell says what he thinks.
I believe Jesus when he said 'life does not consist in the abundance of our possessions'. I believe he offers something better. This blog is mostly about that search.
I'm also a husband, a father, church planter, keen runner, reader, and motorcyclist. These and a few other things make guest appearances from time to time.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Picasa
