It seems impossible to avoid the controversy stirred by reactions to Rob Bell’s latest book, Love Wins. Notice my careful (for once) choice of wording: the controversy that’s been getting attention has been stirred by reactions to the book. We’ve done Rob Bell a great disservice by not engaging the questions he is raising.
Bell wants us to address one of the oldest questions of evangelical theology: How can a loving God send people to hell? This can only be fully explored by asking “What is the nature of the salvation Jesus proclaimed? What is the nature of sin? What is the nature of God’s love for us?” The controversy has been over “Does Rob Bell believe in hell?” and “Is Rob Bell a universalist?” Sadly, commentators have focused so much on the latter questions that we’ve yet again avoided the former, essential questions.
Bell’s detractors are right on one point: it’s quite difficult to discern from Love Wins what Bell actually believes about hell. To Bell’s credit, he never says that this is a book of systematic theology. It’s a book about God’s desire for each of us, a desire rooted in the unconditional love God has for all persons. God already loves each of us, and nothing we ever do (or don’t do) will change that!
(By the way, who picks up a Rob Bell book or video for an exposition of systematic theology? Bell is first and foremost a story-teller, and he relies heavily on those skills in Love Wins. Systematic theology comes from philosophers and academicians. Bell never claims to be presenting a formal theological system.)
Bell and his publisher can be faulted for not addressing anticipated reactions to this book. Given the potential for misunderstanding his intentions and/or conclusions, I would’ve appreciated at least a chapter with some formal statements to reduce chances for confusion. Readers who aren’t accustomed to a story-telling format could be too easily swayed by Bell’s detractors into missing his points.
For me, Bell’s conclusion is that God wants nothing more in the whole universe than to love each one of us. We can either decide to come home to God or we can choose to refuse God’s love. Salvation isn’t about religious formalities and rituals, but about a restored relationship. This is much deeper and much more significant than merely “getting into heaven.”
One cannot understand Bell’s argument without taking note of his choice of a Biblical narrative framework, that of the older son in the story of the lost sons (Luke 15:25-32). The younger son, who by every religious guideline should have been condemned to hell, turns away from his rejection of his father and comes back home. The older son refuses to take part in the celebration for his brother. We can tell from the older son’s comments that, even though he never geographically left home, he had also rejected their father’s love. The father left the invitation open for the older son; the choice was his.
The story of the lost sons has no end. What did the older son ultimately do? Jesus was speaking to religious leaders who were rejecting his message of love and reconciliation (Luke 15:1-2). Were they too in danger of choosing to stand outside the party, choosing self and hell over God’s unconditional love? What did they ultimately do? What will we ultimately do?
My thoughts now (so don’t blame Bell for what follows):
We tend to limit salvation to “what do you believe with your head about Jesus?” There’s gotta be more to it that this. If that’s all there is to salvation, then what was the point of the cross and resurrection? What was the point of incarnation? We insult the life-transforming Good News of Jesus when we water it down to a few points of dogma.
Is salvation really about surrendering all of life to the radical love of God? Can one really say “Yes” to God’s radical love without being transformed by that same love?
What if God chooses to welcome home some (or even many) who have not formally assented to the religion we have created around Jesus but have responded to God’s love? What if some who have formally assented to the religion we have created around Jesus choose to stand outside the celebration, refusing to be transformed by the love of God?
I’m not saying at all that we come to God on our own terms, according to whatever religious system (or lack thereof) we prefer. I am saying that God is not limited to the framework of our own favorite religious system. Hell is about rejecting God’s love, not about rejecting a religious system.
Psalm 84:10 (NRSV) says, “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than live in the tents of wickedness.” Many of us want to be “bouncers” in the house of God, choosing who gets in and who doesn’t. That’s not what a doorkeeper at the temple (the house of God) did. The doorkeeper kept things ready for worship, making sure all the supplies and tools were ready. The doorkeeper also made sure the people were ready for honoring God. The doorkeepers facilitated worship, helping the people come to God.
How can we, those who live our lives after the teachings and example of Jesus, help connect people to this live-giving, life-transforming love of God as revealed in Jesus? This is what should be driving us as God’s church.
Next up: Francis Chan disappointingly misses the point.