http://www.whatthehellbook.com/2012/02/11/get-what-the-hell-for-free-on-the-kindle-sunday-february-12th/

But I think you have a valid point. I cannot allow this argument to limit my theological options. While I had been specifically asked at church to address this controversy, I need to keep reminding all involved that two books do not constitute the bulk of the discussion. I’m a Baptist for crying out loud; I’m not supposed to let others limit the debate for me.

I do not think that, on the basis of “Love Wins,” we can say that Bell has decided that “Hell is inconsistent with God’s Fatherhood.” Part of the problem is that, based on “Love Wins,” we can’t really say with certainty what Bell has decided. He never states a conclusion.

Bell raises questions that must be addressed, and I think that was his intent. However, the arguments that have risen (driven far too much by people who haven’t read the book) are actually hindering discussion of those questions.

I do think that both Bell and Chan would agree that the “end” is not heaven, but God’s very self. Our teaching and preaching, therefore, must be about more than escaping hell.

Thank you for reading and commenting!

I have been embroiled in the debate, prior to the arguments of Bell or Chan, of whether or not to follow these men down the rabbit trail. I am not saying that the existence of Hell is somehow a “rabbit trail” itself – but the argument can be. It seems that you have come to the edge of the forest and chosen which trail seems better of the two. But what is missing in all of this is a simple question: what is the intended destination?

That is the key. Is Chan trying to snap people out of their view of God as a loving, paternal, personal Being? No. In fact, you yourself see that this is not his consistent argument. The key just might be that when we apply our view of what a “loving, paternal & personal” being is, does not end up being the God of Scripture when it comes to issues like Hell and judgement. The issue is that both are chasing the same loving Father and one has decided that Hell is inconsistent (Bell) with God’s Fatherhood, the other has concluded it is not (Chan).

The issue cannot be “which road” but “which end”. I believe it fair to say that both are confident that their view is stronger and more consistent with God’s character overall, but I also believe it fair to say that the divergence is not in God being relational, but in how they each interpret the Scriptures.

Helping others (and accepting that help) can be an art form. Accepting help doesn’t mean we’re weak, just that this particular situation lies outside our abilities or our control. Admitting our need of help is requires more strength and maturity than trying to bear the burden alone. Admitting our need isn’t weakness, but the strength of realizing that we’re not all-powerful.

And it is important to ask “am I doing this for me or for them?” Even if I can meet the need, I must do it in a way that lifts up the other person and not myself. As long as I keep asking that question, I’ll keep myself from focusing on me.

One important thing to note here: we have Christian community, both past and present, to act as “checks and balances” on our own interpretation of scripture. Not that church tradition is always perfect (for example, on slavery), but it can serve as a guardrail to keep us from going too far off course.