I realize I am really late to the party when it comes to Love Wins by Rob Bell but I want to offer some thoughts on this years, seemingly, most controversial Christian book. To start, I want to make it clear I am by no means a Rob Bell fan and find the model of Church he employs at Mars Hill to be counterproductive. What follows are my thoughts simply on what he puts forward in his book. Some of it will be similar to what you have probably already read about his book, but I’m hoping some of it will cause you to question your presuppositions on the topic that Rob Bell made such a popular topic over the last several months.
As I was reading Love Wins I was thoroughly disappointed to not find it as controversial as some had painted it to be before its release. While I could see the issue that many conservative theologians and pastors had with Bell’s thoughts on Hell I did not feel that Bell was really talking about Hell. Yes, Bell talks about Hell, but if you dig deeper than the surface text you can see that Bell was really trying to get to an inherent issue in Protestant evangelism and theology surrounding what it means to be saved.
The impression that I got from Bell is that he is sick of conversions that are quick, emotional decisions based on fear of Hell. I completely understand Bell’s point here. It is one of the many contributing factors to me leaving Protestantism. I have seen way too many people go forward during an alter call to get saved only to go home and continue their lives as normal without showing any signs that they are a new creation and that they now belong to a new way of life. It is almost as if conversion to Christianity is about getting people to somewhere (Heaven) instead of creating something new, here, now. I think that is Bell’s overarching point of this book.
This brings to the forefront a lot of questions that need to be addressed in a lot of Christian circles. Historically speaking, conversion was a long process that was not left up completely to an individual. The individual is joining a community and that community will want to have evidence that the individual is serious about joining their, close-knit, community. It wasn’t something to be taken lightly or a decision to be made in an emotionally charged environment. It often was required that an individual wait two years, being taught right belief and practice during this time, before being chrismated and baptized into the Church. There is something to be said about this method of welcoming people in to the Body of Christ. How many new Christians today know much about what it means to actually be a Christian over and above that they will get to go to heaven because they have a personal relationship with Jesus? Isn’t there more to being Christian than just having a relationship with Jesus? But I’m getting off topic here–back to my thoughts on the book.
Bell clearly does some historical wrangling that is not quite fair to the actual historical position on the doctrine of Hell. While there have been several well-noted universalists through Church history, it has never been and probably never will be accepted on a wide-spread level. The most notable theologian in Church history who was universalist is probably Origen. However, Origen and many of his theological positions were deemed heretical and were anathematized at the Council of Constantinople II in 553. While I hold some universalist leanings I find it hard to agree with Bell that it has ever been an accepted doctrine within orthodox theology.
To close this post I want to offer my own thoughts on the Heaven/Hell issue. First, and foremost, I found it absolutely reprehensible that their were responses to Bell’s book that made it seem as if the existence of Hell is a good thing. I came across some responses that were plain sick in their, seemingly, overwhelming joy that Hell exists. Secondly, I think we need to reevaluate why it is we find it so necessary to emphasize the Heaven/Hell issue in evangelism. We must remember that we have no say in who goes where and we are not to judge lest we be judged. By condemning anyone to Hell we are holding ourselves to the same standard and are thus condemning ourselves to Hell. Lastly, while I do, admittedly, have universalist leanings I find the best approach to the Heaven/Hell issue is to take an agnostic approach. What I mean by this is that we need to focus more on what we can change in the here and now, rather than focusing on the life to come. God will be the one who makes those decisions and when it comes down to it, we could be doing a lot better at not making this life a living-Hell and helping God’s kingdom be present on earth.
Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
