LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.
There's a new virus spreading on the internet. It's called "Rob Bell releases a new book."
People have already begun to accuse Rob Bell of universalism. I'll keep my opinion of Rob Bell quiet until I get a chance to read the book,
which comes out later this month. Nevertheless, there is already a huge blog buzz about a prominent evangelical pastor making statements that sound like universalism. He would not be the first minister to be anathematized as such.The purpose of this blog is not to take a position on exclusivism (only Christians go to heaven), inclusivism (Christians and some others go to heaven), universalism (everybody goes to heaven) or annihilationism (there is no hell), but rather to frame the debate. Specifically, I feel that detractors of Rob Bell (or anyone else who sounds universalist) might consider checking their premises.
What I mean is this: people who argue for the necessity of hell or God's wrath often assume that certain premises are true and undisputed. They are so deeply assumed that people often forget how to defend them. This is bad, because -mark my words- debates about universalism/inclusivism will lead to additional debates about the three premises I am about to mention. If other Christians want to persuade Rob Bell or others, they must be prepared to defend these major premises, and not make the mistake of assuming that they are self-evident and undisputed. Reformed Christians especially (forgive the generalization) seem to make this mistake.
Also, yes, this kind of thing is important for everyday Christian living. After all, another Pastor, Kevin DeYoung argues that we need hell to even forgive our enemies.
Let us begin:
Premise number 1: Justice is avenging evil-doers. This seems to make sense right? Justice, especially divine justice, is making sure that the evil-doer gets what's coming to them. Think of the death penalty. A famous Texas comedian once remarked "If you kill someone [in Texas], we will kill you back." A more academic example is Kant, who said that the death penalty was not just an option, but a moral requirement in the case of a murder. Even the Christian saint Thomas Aquinas said that "Justice was getting what is due to you."
However, this is not the only vision of justice. This idea of retribution has been criticized. An alternative is the idea of restorative justice. This type of justice is not concerned about smiting evil, but restoring what was lost to evil. Instead of "If you kill someone, we will kill you back" it says "If you kill someone, God will raise them back to life." It also implies that all are corrupted by evil, and restorative justice seeks to "restore" what evil did to the soul of the evil-doers themselves.
Premise Number 2: Penal Substitution is the best/only atonement theory. Penal Substitution is common idea. It is so popular that many do not know of any alternatives. I had to get a degree in theology before I heard of alternatives!
It works like this: Humanity has offended God with sin. Since God is infinitely good, so the debt of sin also infinite. Humanity is finite and cannot pay the infinite debt. God must somehow "pay" the infinite debt since no one else can. So God became human in Jesus in order to pay the infinite debt on the cross. This is very dry and technical, but I think it sounds familiar to everyone.
Now, please look for that description of atonement in the New Testament. Yes, please find something very specific. Make it as specific as Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ("why God became man"). A Lutheran minister once shared that penal substitution comes down to us from the middle ages -and he's right. Anselm wrote in the 12th century. That does not make his theory of atonement wrong, but it does put it up for debate doesn't it? When we think about penal substitution, we should not think "how does the Bible teach this?" but rather "did Anselm get it right?"
Premise Number 3: Things are made right/good because God says so. Of all the things mentioned here, I think this one is the quickest to come up. Someone might say that heaven doesn't seem good if there's a tiny torture chamber somewhere near it. Similarly, someone might mention that God's goodness does not allow room for eternal suffering. A common response is something like "God decides what is good" along with pious appeal to Romans 9:16-19.
The problem with this, is that it assumes a certain answer to the famous Euthyphro dilemma. The question is "Are things good because God loves them, or does God love them because they are good?" I think many Christians answer "good because God loves them" and may even endorse baby eating if God said so. I don't think, though, that the question is so easily settled by an appeal to Romans 9 or similar passages. That passages tells that we don't know the reasons for God's choices. God may not tell us his reasons for mercy, or those reasons might be beyond our keen, but neither one of those implies no reasons at all. Not all Christians are happy with "because God says so" type of answers. This blogger sure isn't
Now of course it is possible that someone might believe all three of these premises and be a full blown universalist. Alternately, they may disagree with all three and still be an exclusivist. No matter what though, these things are going to come up in the internet debates, magazine articles, and book reviews about Rob Bell's new book. If Rob Bell really is a universalist, and his detractors uses these premises to condemn him for it, they will need to articulate and defend them quite carefully.
Reposts, retweets make me happy. So also do your welcome comments.
