Books still carry a lot of weight and this Bell controversy is not going away.
Ask Pastor Chad Holtz, a man who was fired from his pastoral position in Durham, NC for backing the views of Rob Bell in his new book Love Wins.
That’s why RE:creative is hosting this dialogue and encouraging readers, denouncers, praisers, Christians, agnostics, Evangelicals, Lutherans and everyone else in between to join in an amicable discussion of the central questions and tenets of Bell’s controversial tome on heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived.
This post is the first in a five part series that RE:creative will host.
I invite everyone to participate by Tweeting this discussion by using the “Share” button at the bottom of this post, commenting on the blog or e-mailing me at recreativeblog@gmail.com.
—
A lot of the controversy over Bell’s book centers on his position on heaven, and more poignantly – hell.
However, before we jump to the conclusion that this book is all about statements let us understand one thing about Love Wins: although it is a book addressing an issue, it asks tons of questions along the way!
Indeed, there are so many questions that RE:creative is going to keep an official “Love Wins Question Counter.” In the preface and first chapter alone there were an astounding 98 questions in 19 pages.
In such a spirit, we are going to start our discussion on Seven Questions, some from Bell and some from me as they concern some of Bell’s statements, I encourage you to respond to them and my limited thought in the comment section:
1 – On the first page, Bell affirms, “I believe that Jesus’s story is first and foremost about the love of God for every single one of us.” Can we believe and affirm this as well? (preface, first page)
“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”
If you think about it, the above line is a pretty radical line from a pretty radical song. Jesus, the incarnation of the Creator God in finite and weak human flesh, loves me, the one who helped put him through suffering and pain for my mistakes.
It gets even more radical when you sing such a song at a Vacation Bible School (VBS). We don’t think twice when kids sing this song. Whether you are from an “age of accountability” baptism position or “infant baptism” position, whether baptism is just a memorial or a means of grace, letting un-baptized children sing this song is crazy.
I mean, when we sing this song are we playing with fire by letting potentially non-Christian children sing that Jesus loves them…and the Bible tells them that?
If you ask me. It isn’t that radical to sing this song with kids. It affirms a core truth. Jesus loves us all. God loves us all in Jesus Christ. Christ’s death and resurrection is for everybody.
Yet, to read my statements above, or Bell’s opening salvo, within the context of a discussion on universalism tends to add a “bent” to the interpretation.
By saying Jesus loves everyone…do you mean everyone?
I don’t think it’s a question of whether or not God loves everyone.
He does.
Pure and simple (John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:8).
The question isn’t whether or not God’s love in Jesus Christ is for everyone, it is whether or not that love is efficacious for everyone.
Therein lies the rub.
Well…
…and the whole controversy surrounding this book.
2 – Why is Bell thrilled if this book “does nothing more than introduce” the reader “to the ancient, ongoing discussion surrounding the resurrected Jesus in all its vibrant, diverse, messy, multivoiced complexity”? What does this even mean? (preface, last page)
Welcome to the whole emerging/emergent/post-modern/post-Evangelical/post-yaddah-yaddah/not-neo-Calvinist/messy Spirituality/diverse range of theological discussion going on here at the turn of the millennium and beyond.
There is an emphasis in emergent/emerging circles, which do indeed include Bell, about the stunning diversity and tension in Christian thought.
While traditional thinkers may look at two diametrically opposed viewpoints and see Christian orthodoxy and Christian heterodoxy respectively a lot of post-modern theological types see it as the “diversity of a generous orthodoxy.”
Underlying such collegial conversations about “diversity” in theology are post-modern views on truth. Stressing diversity over unity (or we might say, strict orthodoxy) many post-modern pastors are encouraging a theological stance that encourages more questions than statements and more dialogue than declaration.
Thus, theology becomes more of a “wide diverse stream” (Bell’s own words) than a narrowly defined pathway.
Are you ready to dive into such a stream?
3 – Why them? Why you? Why me? Why not him or her or them? (pp. 2-3)
These are Augustine’s, Luther’s and Calvin’s questions.
This spring I am taking a master’s class in Reformation History. Last week we were discussing the doctrine of predestination. As we talked about the struggle to understand salvation, election and predestination I was struck at how the questions above were essentially the same questions that drove the likes of Luther and Melanchton to wrestle with a doctrine of predestination.
Thus, we must keep in mind that we are entering into the messy discussion surrounding the elect and predestination as we consider Bell’s claims. It is best to remember that the discussion of who goes where and why in Christian theology is a rather diverse conversation with many nuances and various viewpoints.
4 – Is that what life is about? Going somewhere else? (pp. 6-7)
Let me be the first to say that I completely reject a theology of evacuation and instead prefer a theology of restoration.
That is to say, if all life is about is evacuating this world for the next then what kind of implications does this carry for how followers of Christ are going to treat this world?
The picture is not pretty.
Our God is a God of creation. He is the LORD of restoration. He is the one making all things new (Revelation 21:5).
That’s creation language.
Rather, that’s re-creation language.
That’s restoration talk, not evacuation talk.
However, this does not mean earth as is, or humanity as is, is fine for God.
Nor does it mean that we do the restoring.
To say that the LORD is restoring all things in and through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit is not to say he is not making some DRASTIC changes.
5 – What if the missionary gets a flat tire? (p. 9)
This question strikes my heart quite poignantly. I remember my wife and I belaboring this question in her dorm room during our undergraduate studies in California. The whole discussion ended in tears for both of us.
What if the missionary gets a flat tire?
Bell’s point on this should not be taken lightly.
This is a question that weighs heavily on many hearts.
However, it is not right to take this emotional discussion and seek to rationally explain the whole conundrum away. The issue of a missionary getting a flat tire is a serious one; yet, in the end it may have to be left to the mystery of God.
6 – How is any of that grace? (p. 11)
Amen brother. Amen.
This is Luther’s question.
This is the difference between decision theology and a theology of justification by grace through faith alone.
For a great discourse on the difference between these two theologies and the importance of such a distinction read this article.
If there is one thing that Bell and his peeps get out of this discussion, I pray it is a wariness to preach a Gospel that requires our decision to accept it in order for it to be efficacious. This is not the message of Scripture. Indeed, a theology that proclaims that love wins first and foremost must announce that it is Christ’s love for us that effects faith in our hearts, not our love for Him.
7 – How do you read it? (p. 19)
And so. The questions are now posed to you the reader. How do you read it?
Please share your thoughts below. I invite you to share your thoughts on the first couple of chapters, my discussion above and anything else you deem important for our ongoing discussion.
Thank you for taking the time to read through Love Wins together and discuss it together in Christian love and through the wisdom of the Spirit.
Peace to you all in Christ.
Ken,
Once again, you know me and my background.
I haven’t had a chance to delve into the book yet, but a few preliminary observations:
1. The entire discussion smacks of another attempt to resolve the crux theologurm, that is, the question of why some and not others. You point about you and Elizabeth crying after the discussion about a missionary getting a flat tire illustrates just how difficult this issue is for us. That being said, God does judge throughout scripture-It certainly is his “alien” work, and many a times it does lead to repentance (i.e. Israel at times, King David, Peter, etc.) but in others in leads to condemnation (Rich Man in Luke 16, Judas, etc.) The simple fact is the one who is the creator is also the judge, and God has handed over judgment to Jesus on the last day. Its terrifying for those outside and joyous for those who know Jesus. You know all of this and state it quite well. The whole issue is a paradox in scripture, and it sounds like Bell has tried to resolve it by championing one set of passages over another.
2. Your first point about whether God’s love is efficacious for all led me to think about Bell’s overall theological structure. From the two books of his I have read (Sex God and Velvet Elvis), I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that Bell is operating with a kind of Calvinist framework and uses that framework to suggest that a sovereign God will have what he wills, namely that everybody will be saved. This gets us back to the issue of Irresistable grace, which Bell seems to have re-packaged in a manner that gets rid of hell. While there are numerous things that could be talked about here, the Lutheran in me wants to talk about the sacraments, the means by which God assures us that his love is efficacious for us. I don’t know if Bell has a theology of the performative/sacramental word, but it doesn’t sound like it. Once you remove the means by which you are assured of God’s favor towards you, I feel like you end end up where Bell has-forced to deal with the hidden God apart from his revealed will, which leads into all sorts of trouble-Free will for some, TULIP Calvinism for others. As you mentioned, it gets messy.
3. I agree completely with the idea of a theology of restoration as opposed to a theology of escapism. Escapism has hurt the church in very significant ways.
I’ll try to keep tabs and follow along-Hopefully you get some good discussion going.
Stephen
Thank you Stephen for the comments. You lend, unsurprisingly, an air of academic reflection to the whole discussion. You are quite right in saying that Bell is seeking to answer the crux theologorum. I believe this is an important note to make, and one he acknowledges. We may be too ready to assume that this is some new-fangled post-modern quest, but it’s one we, the Church, has been dealing with for ages and will continue to for many years to come. Grounding it in this historical framework gives us some perspective.
Another historical point that you make, regarding Calvin’s doctrine of irresistible grace being “repackaged” by Bell, is of particular interest to me and I believe it holds great insight for the discussion. The major debate so far has been between so called Neo-Calvinists and Bell. From your point of view they are drawing from the same theological well but coming to very different conclusions. Tres-interesting.
Thanks for the note!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfboAzw-XGU&w=640&h=390
Thanks for posting that video Sean! It’s interesting. Bell seems to always “rebuff” statements made about him in the “private” arena of Mars Hill rather than in a public way (a la Brian McLaren who uses his blog, Christianity Today or other news sources).
I don’t know if this clearly “vindicates” Bell, but it does confirm that he is certainly in the decision theology camp.