Love Wins Pt. 2: Universalism

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 56^th 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…

Love Wins Pt. 1: Intro

It’s been over two months since Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, was released and even longer since the proverbial excrement storm began with three words on Twitter. (Not that anyone needed it, but there’s proof enough that the so-called New Media is changing the way we get info and talk about it, but that’s a topic for another day.) Since then I have read the book twice, read a number of pieces pertaining to the book and discussed the book with those that I could. Now, after going back-and-forth for a few weeks on whether or not to engage this work on the blogosphere, I feel prepared to enter the fray. Frankly, I feel that this is less to share my thoughts with others and more to provide catharsis for myself.

Let me begin by echoing a statement made by Scot McKnight on his blog (www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed) when he was discussing Love Wins: We need to be approaching this subject with great humility and in prayer, asking that the Holy Spirit will speak to us and through us. As followers of Jesus, we are called to remember that we are all of one body and that Jesus is the head of that body. Difference of opinion is inevitable and healthy; the hand perceives a flower much differently than the eye or the nose, yet they are still part of the same body. Likewise, we believers understand Scripture, our faith and how it applies to our lives in many different ways, yet disparaging those that understand differently from us is not only unproductive (as it engenders a defensive posture from those we disagree with) but it is also against the desires of our head, Jesus. It is for the health of the body of Christ that we need to first pray for humility, divine understanding through the Holy Spirit and graciousness towards our brothers and sisters before we begin to engage this discussion.

I’d also like to preface that I think this discussion is extremely timely and very necessary. With all the chaos going on in the world, and our ability to easily gather information from previously “remote” places, more and more believers have asked me the question, “Listen, do you think we are in the end times?” (Caveat: It is possible that I am merely more aware of this question being asked and that the actual number of people asking the question has not increased. Additionally, the level of chaos in the world may not have actually increased, but our current level of information regarding wars, earthquakes, famines, etc. around the world is undoubtedly much higher than it was even 5 years ago.) Because people are witnessing the apparent revolt of nature and the ever-present violence of humanity against itself, they want (or in some cases, feel "a need") to know what is coming down the pike. They want to know what will happen to them when they die or when Jesus returns. Thus, it is extremely helpful for the body of Christ to be wrestling with this topic at this time.

A third disclaimer must be made in the sake of full disclosure: I’m a fan of Rob Bell. I find his style of communication riveting. I like the questions that his teachings (this book included) bring up, and I LOVE that those questions drive me to look into the Scriptures and the history of the Church to determine where I stand in relationship to those questions. In fact, my experience with Bell’s teachings leads me to conclude that the questions are more his point than delivering answers. Since the questions are the point, I can agree with many other Bell commentators who say that he infrequently gives a straight, clear answer without being personally bothered by his apparent evasion. Truthfully, Bell reminds me (at least according to the descriptions I heard in Church History) of a 1st century Jewish Rabbi, never answering questions with answers, but instead more questions. I hesitate to say this since I’m certain someone out there will prove me wrong, but Bell seems to avoid making solid, clear-cut conclusions, instead preferring to challenge your understanding of the faith you live so that you seek to better understand that faith. In this, I believe he succeeds more often than he doesn’t, and I truly appreciate this.

Despite my stated affection for Rob Bell and his teachings, I am unwilling to allow my affection for a human to come between my desire for Jesus and the truth of his Gospel. In many ways it was my admittance of my fandom that caused me to read Love Wins with an extra critical eye (for those that know me, I know that it is hard to believe I could be more critical, but I tried nonetheless).

My need for an extra helping of salt came when I finished reading Love Wins through the first time. I knew I had to read it again before I made any comments because I felt exactly how my wife felt after she read it; when she finished it she said, “I’m not quite sure what people are all worked up about.” Wanting to avoid a fanboy response, I read it a second time, and I came down more firmly where I was after the first read.

Some may read that and conclude that I am a heretic or apostate or anti-Christ or any number of derogatory terms that have been directed at Rob Bell in the past few months. Well, I’d like to ask you to pick your label off the table for a bit longer, and read what I’m saying first. If you still think I’ve earned it at the end, then, by all means, toss it back on the table (i.e. the comment section) and lets talk about it. Perhaps you’ll rethink your position on Love Wins. Maybe you’ll still disagree with it, but maybe you’ll also agree that there is a certain level of Christian charity that needs to be expressed to those of a different understanding without applying labels. However you come down in the end is between you and God. I’m just asking for you to be sure that you are asking the Spirit to speak.