Boycott Hell... in the Long Term

Rob Bell is an interesting thinker. I was exposed to him via his Nooma videos at one of the churches I went to in Lexington. He seemed to be a bit of a free-thinker, but grounded in biblical history, bringing quite a bit of knowledge of first-century historical background to bear on the Gospels.

Thus, his move towards an universalist take on salvation in his new book Love Wins comes as a bit of a head-scratcher; here's a good Timothy Dalrymple piece on "Hellgate."

Good theology starts with what we call exegesis, what the writer or speaker was trying to say at the time; that goes beyond the direct quote and tries to get at what the readers/listeners of the day would have read into it and what was likely intended. Since Bell seems to have some solid exegetical chops, it's surprising that he falls flat here.

As I understand the debate, Bell's main issue is whether Hell is truly eternal or just long-term. The Greek word in question can be used in both ways, but since the "eternal life" in John 3:16 uses that word (as Tim Challies points out), using an eternal eternal for Heaven and a merely long-term "eternal" for Hell seems to be a bit off.

Translation can cause theology to go off the rails; TD Jakes' take on the Trinity as three manifestations (rather than persons) seems to flow from the King James Bible's use of the word. By questioning the translation of "eternal", Bell alters basic orthodox theology by bringing a small-u universalist desired hermeneutic and warping the exegesis.

It is the Reformed Blogosphere that lit up first, since universalism throws TULIP out the window; or at least ULIP, since we can be Totally Depraved all we want in a universalist worldview, given that God's going to save us no matter what. The more Arminian side of the aisle were as inclined to criticize the Reformers than to defend Bell.

One of the harder points of Reformed theology to swallow is the idea that some folks aren't going to be saved no matter what. That leads a lot of folks into the Arminian camp, even if they won't call themselves that; for one example, Baptists often are leery of "Calvinism" on the grounds of wanting a fighting shot at saving everyone they can and don't want Limited Atonement to dampen their evangelism. Save that, there would be a lot more common ground between the neuvo-Reformed and other conservative evangelicals.

Once you open up the prospect of saving everyone, it's not a big jump to question why a good God will let some folks roast in Hell and some not; that might explain the lack of fire coming from non-Reformed circles. Once Heaven becomes an open set, what is there to keep it from become the entirety other than harsh theology?

An emphasis on free will might be one. If God prizes a free choice from His people rather than a forced response to follow Him in Reformed thought, might an Arminian God opt to accept the decision to turn one's back on Him? Or does He drag Christopher Hitchens kicking and screaming into Heaven?

Rob Bell seems to think so. Interesting. Likely wrong, but interesting.

One of the downsides of being a free-thinker is that you tend to ignore traditional viewpoints. If tradition seems off, you go your own way, not thinking that it might well be that you're the one that is off.

Traditionally, eternity means eternity, not a 99-year-lease that rounds to eternity in financial math but will expire someday. Ignore that idea at your own peril.

Comments

[Brian]

We got a job to do
Running out of time to do it
You've got a gift to use
Get out in the world and use it

Bury your foolish pride, we gotta unionize
Hey don't you think it's time to boycott hell

--DeGarmo & Key

[Kevin Holtsberry]

You should read the Bell book, Mark. It is short and easy to read. While I think Bell is off on some of his exegesis, and I don't agree with all of his ideas, he has important things to say. I have read and re-read it.

Here is a review I thought was balanced: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/reviews/25070-love-wins-by-rob-bell

One of the ironies is that one of the main points of the book is that if we start making the gospel about who is "in" or "out" we miss the point. So guess what all the debate is about? "Who is in and who is out?" "Is Rob Bell a universalist?" Etc.

BTW, Bell leans very much toward their being a "Hell" a place absent God simply because love freely offered can be freely rejected and given that some people seem intent on refusing God on earth some will insist on it in the life to come.

I often find the Neo-Reformed funny because they are so insistent on a systematic theology that fits perfectly together. Anything short of that is unacceptable. They make theology into math. And far too many of them aggressive to the point of undermining the faith they believe they are attempting to defend.

Bell is not a systematic thinker nor is his book an attempt at it. Instead it is a provocative attempt to get us to get away from a "turn or burn" view of the gospel and into a story that communicates the love of God AND reflects this story in our lives.