The question that on the tongues of almost everyone discussing Love Wins has been, “Is Rob Bell a Universalist?” My answer would be, “No, he’s not, at least not in the traditional, everyone-goes-to-heaven sense of the word.” I say this because 1.) Bell has said plainly he’s not a universalist in a number of interviews (see his pre-release NYC event, his interview with Relevant Magazine, his interview at Denver Seminary, and others) and 2.) his book does not lead me to that conclusion.
Some might want to pounce on my stating “not in the traditional sense” and say, “But, he’s STILL a universalist!” Bell has repeatedly and clearly (a somewhat amazing feat) stated that he DOES NOT believe that there will be a sweeping into heaven of every person ever created, but, for evangelicals, Bell still demonstrates a universalist trajectory when he intimates that there will be opportunities for salvation after death (see chapter 4), and when he claims that people come to Jesus in varied ways, apparently stating that Christians shouldn’t claim a monopoly on salvific truth (see chapter 6). These “accusations” presume that Bell is negating, or at best minimizing, the work of Christ on the cross.
These questions and concerns are, in my estimation, valid points worthy of consideration and discussion. Yet, at the same time, I feel that many of the questions and concerns regarding Love Wins have been raised on portions of the book that are taken out of context, and not taking the context of something into consideration can drastically redefine what is being conveyed. (For example, a physically fit, healthy 20-something saying “I have a headache,” is hardly a reason for grave concern. But that same phrase uttered by a 80-something that has a history of high blood pressure and stroke should incite, at the least, a call to the doctor.) At the same time, I have learned that despite someone perception being different from reality, because it is their perception, it has become their reality and will remain so until they are able to see outside of their perception (and, even then, sometimes people do not change).
It is fair to look at these more nebulous passages and have concerns regarding Love Wins, but I think that if we look at the greater context of the book and where he does make clear statements, then we can see how Bell DOES fully appreciate and require the work of Christ on the cross. To address the issues listed above, Bell at a few points in his book indicates that we do not know for certain what happens after death and that we should admit “with humility the limits of our power of speculation.” (p. 116) Evangelicals have traditionally adhered to a relatively firm (or, in some cases, absolutely firm) doctrine of heaven and hell, which states that you get this life, and this life only, to choose to follow Jesus. If you choose Jesus, you get to go to a beautiful place called heaven. If you do not choose Jesus, you will receive eternal, conscious torment in a place called hell. But none of us have been to either of these places, come back and told others about it, so there is always a certain level of doubt or uncertainty that we need to give room to.
Because of this uncertainty and the tension created by passages that state that only some will enter life and other passages that say that Jesus is saving all things, we see Bell describing post-death opportunities of salvation (echoing church fathers Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and others he lists), but he clearly admits he is speculating and is without an answer. “Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love [which Bell has defined throughout Love Wins as God giving us the freedom to choose] requires.” (p. 115, emphasis mine, he also admits this speculation in interviews with Relevant Magazine and Dr. Scott Wenig at Denver Seminary) Bell’s point (as I see it) is that we do not have sufficient proof to be hanging the entire weight of our faith on that theological coat hook, and that until we get that proof we should exercise humility and curiosity, constantly imploring the Holy Spirit to shed light on that which we don’t know.
Others argue that Bell’s stating that there might be opportunities later minimizes, or negates, the need for people to choose Christ in this life. Bell clearly says that, “This invitation to trust [in Jesus] asks for nothing more than this moment, and yet it is infinitely urgent… Jesus reminds us in a number of ways that it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine.” (pp. 196-197) Despite wondering about infinite opportunities to turn to Jesus, Bell seems to be saying, “Choose now! We don’t know what the future holds!”
(Side Note: In his interview at Denver Seminary [about the 56th minute], Bell indicates that he thinks we should park ourselves right in the middle of the tension of, “Will all, or only some, be saved?” His purpose in doing so was to preserve the unity of God from those who might view him as schizophrenic, being infinitely loving and forever pursuing on one side of death, and legalistically bound and emotionally callused on the other side of death. Personally, I think this is an admirable attempt at dealing with a tremendous spiritual tension.)
Additionally, it is fair and necessary for people to wonder what Bell is getting at in chapter 6 when he refers to Jesus as, “supracultural,” and that, “He is for all people, and yet refuses to be co-opted or owned by any one culture… includ[ing] Christian culture.” (p.151) Honestly, as I read that quotation on its own, it sends a shiver down my spine, but, again, this strikes me as a concern taken out of context.
On pages 154-155, Bell describes inclusivity (all paths lead to heaven as long as your heart is right), exclusivity (only those that have chosen Jesus in the prescribed way will reach heaven) and, “exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity,” which means that Jesus, and Jesus only, is the way to heaven, but there may be ways to Jesus that we may not know of or even understand. Essentially, Bell is saying that people who haven’t “prayed the prayer” or “accepted Jesus as the personal Lord and Savior” or “been born again” as we traditionally describe them and understand them to work may just get to heaven, but they will only be able to do so through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
I don’t think that it is absurd to claim that we (Christians) have no ownership claims on Christ. In fact, he owns us, we are his slaves (Eph. 6:6), but additionally he owns and sustains all things (Col. 1:16-17). So, all of humanity has equal claim to the gift of salvation through Jesus, and, thus, whomever Jesus chooses to save is indeed saved, regardless of whether or not we agree with how they came to Jesus. (Clarification: Only Christ-followers have access to the power of the Holy Spirit, but salvation, which is what Bell is discussing, is for all.)
I believe that this is an orthodox point because it removes us from the position of God who alone knows the hearts of humans (1 King 8:39). Yes, we can have an idea of a person and their orientation towards God based on the fruit of their lives, but we should not presume to judge (Matthew 7:1) because judging requires the rendering of a verdict, which from our human position will always be flawed from lack of information. And since we cannot know undoubtedly, we should always leave room for an omniscient God to work in a way that we would not predict. Like the issue of infinite opportunities for salvation mentioned above, we need to admit where we are speculating and understand where we do not know for certain.
The concern that many have regarding this position (which, incidentally, was reflected by C.S. Lewis, a favored author of many evangelicals) is that, “[a]s soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland,” we minimize or negate the necessity of the cross (a concern that was delivered in Stuart McAllister’s interview with Dr. Daniel Block of Wheaton College). Here is where we see the concerned voices missing the greater context of the book, because Bell does not reject repentance or a change of heart (p. 196), which is only necessary if the cross is true, nor does he say that, “hell [or heaven]… isn’t intimately connected with what we actually believe.” (p. 82) Instead Bell is fully asserting the necessity of Jesus’ work on the cross, but saying that we need to be careful of asserting our particular soteriology and/or eschatology as the only soteriology and/or eschatology, which, in my opinion, is a valid, and orthodox, point.
So, is Rob Bell a Universalist? Based on his own words, I’d say, “No,” unless you want to lump anyone who longs for the salvation of all humanity, even to the point of hoping they get infinite chances through Jesus the Christ in the category “Universalist.” If that’s your definition, then, “Yes,” but then I wonder if all followers of Jesus should be Universalists…
No comments:
Post a Comment