Everyone has reviewed this book. Everyone has a pretty strong opinion about it. Love it. Hate it. He's wrong. He's right. So, for what it's worth, I'll add my voice to the world's largest book review chorus.
First things first. I really don't care if Rob Bell is a universalist. If in fact he is (and given the nature of his present musings I would suggest that he is some variation of the sort, his protestations notwithstanding) and if in fact he is right then there will be multitudes of very happy and very relieved folks. And there is no reason I should be unhappy about such a result or such a fantastic redemption of all mankind. If God is to be glorified as such then God is to be glorified indeed. In Luke 20:1-16, the good master paid every man the same wage regardless of his time in the field. If this principle were to apply to the salvation of all how is it that I should play the part of the ungrateful servant even though I have worked longer? It is of no consequence to me -- under either scenario I would count myself among the redeemed. And either way I rejoice. Given Bell's theology I would simply rejoice with a much larger throng.
Nonetheless, I believe he has reached the wrong conclusion. I am not a universalist. Over the course of my study of the Scripture I have reached a substantially different result. But I'd be more than happy to have a cup of Starbucks with Bell. We could talk about what we have read, discuss our mediations and perhaps challenge each other to review our positions with a greater seriousness. I could tell him that I think he looks like he should be playing guitar for Death Cab for Cutie and he could tell me that he always really wanted to be an attorney. I think we could agree to disagree and then we would both confirm our joint belief that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ.
Regardless of Bell’s views on post-mortem redemption there are other potential pitfalls of poor theology presented in his pages. Now, how’s that for alliteration?! Perhaps these issues are as important as whether Bell is a universalist. Perhaps they are even more imperative.
To be sure, this book was profoundly disturbing and at times infuriating. But not as a result of the universalism issue. He is; I'm not. Let's move on...
I was bothered by his huge presuppositions which were not supported by either Scripture or any source other than his imagination (by way of illustration see his views on the nature of post-mortem choice and consequences, opportunity and further choice).
I was bothered that he valued etymology only when it supported his thesis and was wholly ignored when the original Greek meaning was contrary to his teachings or called them in to question (by way of illustration see his word study on "forever" but his ignorance of the word "wants" from 1 Timothy 2:4).
I was bothered by the insightful questions he asked (see the first two chapters).
And I was bothered most by his schizophrenic and undeveloped answers. If they were answers at all.
The book is premature. Bell is a wounded healer. I'm venturing a guess that Bell wrote this book for others so that he could himself attempt to figure out the answers along the way. I'm not sure he knows exactly what he believes. But the questions are really good. The questions he asks need to be asked. And they need to be asked in the church. Just because their is a refusal to address the questions within church does not mean that the questions do not dictate an answer. The world has been asking questions about "Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" for years. The church has been providing softball answers if answers are provided at all. We need to find a better way to articulate real information in response to the questions that Bell posses. He's done us all a favor by starting the dialogue. We need to return the favor and find what Bell left missing. Or Bell needs to revisit and revise his book once he figures out what he really believes. As it is, his motley patchwork of conclusions is self defeating, contradictory and at times borderline humanistic.
For instance, early on Bell posits that while society at large, the disciples and the religious illuminati were all in the dark about the true nature of Jesus Christ and His work on earth the demons, and only the demons, properly understood His identity and mission. Later, however, Rob Bell essentially dismisses hell as an actual physical or spiritual place. It is largely a creation of our own evil choices and the consequences are a denial of our humanity. Lukewarm jello at best. If a literal hell is to be dismissed then a literal Satan is also to be shunned. In turn Bell hints that this may also be the case. My questions, then, are that if neither hell nor Satan are present realities who do the demons serve, what is their function, from where did they come and what exactly are we to think of or do with them? How can we give their testimony credence when we have negated all that would give them existence?
The book is riddled with such double speak and it is most often left unresolved. The God of the Old Testament is wholly ignored and we are served a gospel buffet of cheap grace and easy streets where the primary focus is you and me as opposed to God and his glory. While Bell includes an insightful chapter designed to argue that the gospel is indeed all about the atoning work of Christ he later undermines the same by repeatedly stating that Christianity is a, “Wide stream we’re swimming in,” or, “Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives.” This in contrast to Matthew 7:13 where Christ himself states, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."
By and large the result is that Bell's "good news" becomes a selfish gospel with a predisposition to us and our completeness with no emphasis on all things occurring for and to the Glory of God. The emphasis is on the wrong syllable. An anthropocentric God allows for heaven and hell and fate to be all about us and our social programs and our developments and tolerance and “humanness” as the ultimate goal. We become the focal point of the gospel and God’s glorification becomes an afterthought if a thought at all.
Bell addresses rejection in terms of our rejecting our “God-given humanness” and not any real rejection of God. As such, the resulting punishment or hell is defined only as the, “very real consequence we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us.” God exists, is appears, to serve us. There is no apparent down side to rejecting God; only to rejecting the "humanity" he gave us.
Logic is defied.
More so, it appears to me that Scripture is defied.
And history is defied.
But the questions still need to be answered.
So... In conclusion:
If Bell is a universalist then he is a universalist and any reader should be caveat lector (reader beware!)
If Bell is not a universalist then he is not a universalist and, still, any reader should be caveat lector!
Jonathan
