A few years ago ago my city was ravaged by a series of murders by one crazed lunatic, resulting in 7 deaths. It exemplifies the kind of conversations we need to have in face of any evil tragedy, but especially the heinous crime of mass murder that seems to now be a hallmark in the Western world.
—
One week ago today, July 7, 2011, our city was ravaged by evil, sin, and death.
Make that seven lives were utterly obliterated—two of which were children. Two families wiped off the face of this earth. Countless more devastated.
What’s more: a person was evil; a person sinned; a person vandalized the shalom of God’s world by doing acts of death. These seven people weren’t simply “stepped on by the machine”—they were murdered by a person in rebellion against God.
After this immense tragedy I have a burning question that bubbled-up the day after this tragedy, one I can’t quite shake: how exactly does Love Wins—the recent book written by local Grand Rapids pastor, Rob Bell—offer any ounce of hope to these grieving families, to those whose lives were raped by evil, sin, and death last week afternoon?
I realize this post may seem callous and absurdly out of place in light of Thursday’s realities. This post isn’t meant to simply argue a theological point in the wake of such a great tragedy, but call into question the gospel Story we tell in such situations. As I sat glued to the internet Thursday night I kept thinking about how important ideas are precisely for moments like this—how important the gospel of Jesus Christ is for moments like this and how important it is to get that gospel right, because it’s the only answer in the face of such tragedy.
I would love to know how Rob Bell would respond to this mass, tragic shalom vandalization in our mutual backyard. What answer would he would give to this great tragedy? How would gifting copies of his new book help ease their suffering? What hope would he offer through his gospel?
Therein lies the problem: he can’t respond. His book wouldn’t help because its gospel is hope-less.
The great irony of this book that promises the hope of a winning love is that in the face of the sulfuric stench of evil, sin, and death—in the face of grave injustice—the promise of universal salvation and unending grace without an ounce of actual, genuine justice is utterly
vapid. hollow. cruel.
Sure he writes “for the earth to be free of anything destructive or damaging, certain things have to be banished. Decisions have to be made. Judgements have to be rendered;” there will be a “day when God says ‘ENOUGH!’ to anything that threatens the peace.” (37) But what Rob argues will be judged are THINGS, not people themselves. Every person will survive in the next life regardless of what they did in their few short years of life on earth now (102, 108-111, 175); it’s attitudes and acts that will not (36, 113).
That’s comforting? That’s reassuring?
That’s right? That’s
just?
Is it at all comforting to the families and communities destroyed by the sin of July 7 to say that murder will be judged, yet not the murderer himself? How is this just? To somehow, in someway render judgment against an inanimate non-being called Murder, yet the person who committed those heinous acts of shalom vandalization is not himself judged? How is it that a murderous attitude will “simply not survive…[the] flames in heaven” yet the person with those attitudes will?
According to Rob the next life will be a starting over for this shalom vandalizer where he will learn how to be human all over again. (50) Really? How is that any sense of justice? How is it that an attitude of murder will be judged and condemned, yet the murderer will live on, still having the chance to experience heaven because God will eventually melt even his hard heart?
A friend of mine once said those who have never experienced injustice personally find it incredibly easy to ask why a loving God would “punish people for all eternity for sins committed in a few short years.” (175) In the words of my friend John Frye, for Love Wins, love means never ever saying the word “hell,”
even in the face of evil, sin, and death,
because it’s is a white, western, suburban gospel.
How can a book that promises people will have endless opportunities to choose God even after death in any way account for the realities of evil, sin, death? How can a gospel in which the “love of God will melt even the hardest of hearts” (108) hold any weight in final, definitive justice?
They can’t.
Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can.
A gospel which believes every single person on the planet has rebelled against a holy, righteous God and is busted beyond all self-repair because they are by nature born rebels and in desperate need of a Rescuer—life is bad because we are bad.
A gospel which believes evil, sin, and death were actually dealt with when they were nailed to those very blood-soaked boards of execution that held the limp, lifeless body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—Jesus was our sacrificial suffering servant who paid our price in our place when he bore our evil and sin.
A gospel in which the grave could not contain our sacrificial Great High Priest, because as the great hymn says: Up from the grave he arose with a mighty triumph o’er his foes! Through the actual, physical, bodily, witnessed resurrection of Jesus Christ death has been swallowed up in victory. Now all that remains is our collective cry: “Where O Death is your victory? Where O death is your sting?”
(Let’s be clear: unlike Rob’s belief that the cross and the resurrection are merely symbols of a deeper reality in the universe, “one we all experience every time we take a bite of food” [131], they were actual events through which evil, sin, and death were actually dealt with by God Himself. Something happened at the cross and the grave so that humans can be rescued and this world can be put back together again!)
A gospel which announces and offers the great, vast, mysterious, magical, revolutionary mercy of God that provides forgiveness of sins, reconciliation to Himself, new life now, and resurrection from the dead later—all by pure, unadulterated grace through faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
A gospel which looks forward to that glorious day in history when Jesus Christ comes again to finally put this world back together again, finally make things right by judging every single person on the planet for their belief and behavior in Him.
That’s the hope we offer a grieving city one week out.
Yes, July 7th was downright evil. It sucked. Death sucks because death is not the way it was supposed to be. But there is hope. There is hope because one day that day will be made right. It will be made right because Jesus Christ Himself will make it right. He will make it right by calling on this man to account for his deliberate choice to rebel against God by ravaging seven of His Images-Bearers through murder. And, while we do not nor should we ever glory in the death or eternal punishment of any evil, sinful person, he will be punished—though he escaped the scales of earthly justice in this life by killing himself, he will await God’s in the next.
I hope for the sake of our city on the other side of this great injustice the Church of Grand Rapids will offer the only balm that can sooth the devastation wreaked by evil, sin, and death: the hope of rescue and promise of re-creation through our crucified, resurrected Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—the real gospel of Jesus.
As I wrote before, Love Wins isn’t hopeful because it isn’t honest, and it isn’t the gospel. It is a fake gospel that offers fake hope.
And that hope is the hollowest, cruelest of them all.
Especially on a day like today.
The week after evil, sin, and death ravaged our city.
I think that it is easy to read the thoughts of Rob Bell and grow angry that he is cheapening the gospel. However, I also think that God is an extremely mysterious being who has the potential to grant mercy to whoever He wants to. I don't know much about what the afterlife will consist of. Neither do you. But that's completely beside the point. The point is that we don't know what heaven will be and we don't know who will be there. Our purpose is not to figure out the mysteries or debate the unknown. Our purpose is to love each person we meet and pray that everyone will end up in heaven. Because we all fall short and God will do what He deems right. That right may be Rob Bell's version or it might be yours. Either way, we have no control over His decesion so we might as well stop obsessing and start loving.
Like Jonathan said, my point was not about predicting who is going to be in heaven and what it's going to be like. My point is about the gospel…God's Story of Rescue that opens the way for people to be forgiven of sin, reconciled to God, and raised to new life now and later.
I don't want to come across as limiting God or his mercy…but don't you think it'd be cruel if there was yet ANOTHER standard God used to judge beyond Jesus that he didn't let us know about, that was so mysterious and hidden and arbitrary to allow him "to grant mercy to whoever He wants?"
We do know how God is merciful, gracious, and judges. We know because God Himself has revealed it to every person on the planet: Jesus Christ. It is by grace we are rescued from sin and death through faith in Jesus Christ…we can do nothing (whether from our own personal gumption or ingenuity to our social and family background).
I don't see how it's obsessing to be honest about the gospel. In my book sharing and showing that gospel IS the most loving thing one can do!
Scarlett, I don't think Jeremy's point was to predict who is going to be in heaven and what it's going to be like. His point is that the Scriptures are very clear as to the requirement of Salvation, and if what Rob Bell espouses is true, it negates personal responsibility and personal judgment. I agree that we need to show love, but how better to show love than to share the message of God's ultimate act of love to the world?
"I realize this post may seem callous and absurdly out of place in light of Thursday’s realities. This post isn’t meant to simply argue a theological point in the wake of such a great tragedy…"
You should have stopped there. Using these victims (and the perpetrator) as an object lesson for your anti-Bell agenda is pretty sad. You say it isn't meant to simply argue a theological point, but yet that is exactly what you are doing. Nowhere in your post did you say anything about holding up the people involved in love and support, or praying for them or with them or even treating them as humans with the compassion they need in this time of tragedy.
I'll tell you how Bell wouldn't react: He wouldn't use these people next Sunday to talk about all the other Christians who disagree with him.
For shame.
jj
Wingnut—2 days after this tragedy I re-posted a blog post that urged just what you ask: "holding up the people involved in love and support, or praying for them or with them or even treating them as humans with the compassion they need in this time of tragedy."
I am not using these people. I am asking a very important question of the gospel of Rob Bell, one I think should be asked and is entirely appropriate to be asked in light of injustices like this.
Instead of ranting against me and my argument in an ad hominem, tell me why I'm wrong and how LW offers any hope to the victims of this tragedy. That's what's so interesting about Bell fanboys: they only responses they have is ad hominem, rather than coherent, logical ones…
Love wins means God wins. True & perfect love comes only from God. Thus, God always wins. So to ask how Rob's gospel brings any hope, the answer to your question is squarely in the title of the book. Direct people to the source of love, and people will find hope.
How you have decided to interpret Rob's book is different than many Christians who have read it. To call people who really respect Rob "Bell fanboys" is insulting at any level. To suggest that they only respond ad hominem is to ignore the responses of many thoughtful and highly respected biblical scholars including Eugene Peterson (Author of 'The Message') and Richard Mouw (President of Fuller Seminary).
While they are responding outside of your blog, to ignore the responses of people such as Peterson and Mouw isn't helpful. Plenty of amazing followers of Jesus with deep theological backgrounds have found value in Rob's book. C.S. Lewis and John Stott had similar thoughts and ideas at times in their lives.
I conclude with these thought that I encourage you to consider. Like Rob's writings, they are not new, but they seem to have been forgotten. Christians have professed these words for centuries. Really living them would only help our public witness.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
So because Peterson and Mouw agree with the book I can't think for myself? I think they are wrong and I've outlined why in a 7500 word review.
Bell is no Lewis and Bell is no Stott; neither does he share their ideas.
What exactly has been forgotten? And what are the words that Christians have professed for centuries? I agree his ideas aren't new. They are recycled theological liberalism and reflect heresies of the past. (I'm not mud-slinging here…it's true. Crawling into bed with Origen is not cozy bedfellow!)
Beyond Peterson and Mouw, it's interesting how many voices have not been critical but rather have chosen to remain on the sidelines. Voices in Grand Rapids such as Wolterdorff, Plantinga, and Dobson have remained quiet. It's not a coincidence they have remained quiet. They know the character of the kingdom allows for differing voices and somewhat different understandings of the nature of our God.
The depth and breath of the holy catholic and apostolic church is so much bigger than we fathom in evangelical America. While you are welcome to disagree with Bell, your posture suggests that you are right and Rob is dead wrong. Perhaps a posture of arrogance is equally as wrong as holding a belief that is 'right.' When I read through the biblical text, it is exceedingly clear how we are to live.
We are to have attitudes like that of Jesus Christ. We are to be compassionate, not arrogant or pride-filled, and we are to treat others with gentleness and respect. John, the disciple closest to Jesus heart, wrote "Anyone who does not love does not know God." Anyone. No matter how 'right' their theology is.
To suggest that Rob is "No Lewis and no Stott" goes to the point of attitude. At age 30 you simply don't know these things. Wisdom and discernment come with age rather than with education. While you are welcome to think for yourself, if you continue down this road, you'll end up where the far right always ends up — you'll end up with nobody willing to listen to you except the people with whom you agree. In other words, the hope of the gospel that you and I profess won't be heard by anyone who needs to hear it.
While your intentions to teach and preach the gospel are noble, you seem to be intentionally making your circle of influence smaller. I think of the friendships that you have left behind over the past two years for the sake of following the ways of your mentor. While you may be thinking for yourself, the trail is one of broken friendships and trust for the sake of 'truth.' If truth ends up leaving brokenness in its wake, it fails to be the kind of reconciliation that it claims in the biblical text. We are called to be reconciled with God and with one another. When truth pushes us farther apart, it isn't truth at all but something quite different.
If you read through the posts of those who disagree with you, there is a thread that continues to distance you from them which is quite the opposite of good news, aka the gospel.
So because I insist that there will be a day when every single person on the planet is judged either "in Christ" or "outside of Christ," people are called to place their faith in Jesus right now, Jesus is the only one true God, the experience of the cross is much more profound that "when we take a bite of food" (Bells words!), and Jesus was actually raised from the dead I'm arrogant?
Interesting Randy.
PS—I'm still waiting for the coffee I asked to have with you 2 years ago that you promised we'd have, BTW…
Wow. This piece comes across as amazingly nasty and callous.
(1) I disagree with your interpretation of Love Wins in the first place. I have stated this previously. However, it's a bit hard to pursue a defense of this, since Rob himself seemed so evasive in his interviews during the book tour. I don't wish to defend or clarify a confusing book that even the author is hard pressed to defend. But, "Rob Bell's Response" mentioned in your title is just "Rob Bell's [non] Response as imagined by Jeremy Bouma."
(2) I believe Rob's book was aimed at those who have moral objections to the concept of God as (he thinks) commonly portrayed by Christians. It is a response to an objection like this: How can one believe in God who unjustly tortures people in Hell? Again: say what you will about it, it is a moral objection. So, it seems strange to me that you think he would have no moral objections to a person going on a murder spree. What? Who wouldn't?
(3) It seems to me (as it does to you, apparently) that the basis of the doctrine of Hell is justice and the judgment of God. God cares about right and wrong, and God is going to set things right. It's worth noting that very few Christians have an adequate response to something like this.For example: If the gospel is understood as: "believe (cognitively) in Jesus or you'll burn in Hell" — well, that isn't much of a response either. Some of my Baptist friends have told me that someone who accepts Jesus as a 12 year old is saved eternally — all his/her sins are forgiven "past, present and future." Really? So, in this theology, if our mass murder had once professed faith & his victims never had, he would be going to Heaven while his victims end up in (oh, let's say…) Eternal Conscious Torment Forever. This view — which seems to be a corruption of Christianity quite prevalent in our day — is clearly unjust. I have discovered over the years that atheists often take the view of Christians that they are people who lie, cheat and steal just as much as anyone else, but simply excuse themselves because they are Christians. "Christians aren't perfect, they are just forgiven." (b) Does the notion that the mass murderer spends eternity in Hell satisfy justice? Is that justice? How do you know he wasn't mentally ill and delusional? Is our solidarity with the victims undermined in any way if we discover that they are sinners also, just in other ways.
The notion of Hell (however conceived) is rooted in the justice of God. And, I'm willing to leave the justice part in the hands of God, who knows far more than I do.
In th mean time Christians should pray and stand in solidarity with those who grieve in the wake of this tragedy. I imagine that would be Rob Bell's response as well.
1) Yeah I agree and think it’s problematic that Bell wrote a confusing book…one that seems quite hard to defend. Although I think things have become much clearer in many ways, too: The whole of his writings and teachings show he is a liberal existentialist. I think that’s certainly something to respond to.
2) I think in many ways Bell’s book was aimed at Christians who hold to the historic Christian faith and the authority of Scripture. And the point ISN’T that he wouldn’t have a problem with someone going on a murder spree. My problem is that Bell’s gospel makes no room for justice as in the end this murder (and I’m really not making a judgment on his salvation, though I can see how it appears I am…) will eventually be fine…God will melt even his hard, murderous heart…his murderous attitude will not survive in “heaven-on-earth” while he himself will. That’s Christian?
And to your point about it also being written for people who are asking very good questions like the one you posed: Bell’s response is then to actually question the God of the Bible Himself who actually does appear to judge and punish people in hell.
3) I agree with the scenario you set up, Craig. Again, my point is that their can be no justice with Bell’s concept of Hell as it is merely and simply existential. In the end everyone will win. That’s not Scripture and that’s not Christian…and I don’t understand why someone can’t objectively say that based on what Bell has said and written.
“In the mean time Christians should pray and stand in solidarity with those who grieve in the wake of this tragedy.” I totally agree…which is why I wrote the post I did 2 days after.
Well, thanks for the reply, anyway. In Love Wins I see the influence of N. T. Wright & C. S. Lewis. That's all to the good as far as I'm concerned. I see a basically Arminian structure of thought (though I wonder if Rob knows that). I'm (of course) just fine with that, too. And, yes, I see the influence of Thomas Talbott. I'm not so okay with that, though it appears that Rob is endorsing universalism only as a live option. The Bibliography at the end of Love Wins is very, very thin — and cites these sources. The notion that this is Tillichian existentialism is absurd. I served for 38 years as a United Methodist pastor, so I know quite a few Tillichians (and, for that matter, Niebuhrians) and Rob Bell doesn't seem to me to fit in that tribe at all. (Besides, Tillich is currently passé. Moltmann is currently very "in." But, I don't think I'd call him an existentialist.)
But, really, I should read his other stuff to see what's there. I love to hear Rob preach. But, I can only hope his other writings are an improvement on Love Wins.
By the way, according to the Psalmist, judgment is a good thing.
"Say among the nations, 'The Lord is king! The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved. He will judge the peoples with equity.' Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; let the field exult, and everything in it. Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord; for he is coming, for he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with his truth." (Psalms 96:10-13 NRSV).
It is a good thing precisely because God is holy, just and loving. He alone can be trusted to overcome evil.
And thanks for your own pushback and interaction 🙂
I also see Wright and Lewis influences, though I don't think any of them would take it as far as he does. In fact re-reading SURPRISED BY HOPE has several points of response to Bell's own theology in LW.
I see Arminian structure, too, which I also am fine with as I am NOT a Calvinist. I've read Talbott and Perry/MacDonald, et al and have problems, too, with that influence. I myself have wrestled with Christian universal salvation and had at one point considered it a viable option. I can't jibe it with Scripture, however. Neither can I jibe it with Tradition.
My "notion that this is Tillichian existentialism is absurd," huh? Well maybe I over play it, but I read this book in the middle of some serious Tillich study (His entire ST plus 4 other of his more sermon books) and I saw clear links. I'll consider this pushback and perhaps dial back my comparison, but I see a lot of connections between him and Tillich. And besides, I know he was into him when he originally preached this sermon several years ago…
You say: And besides, I know he was into him when he originally preached this sermon several years ago…
Ah. You know more than I do. And, I confess to being uninterested in Tillich. (However, I have a longstanding love/hate relationship with Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament.) There is a Church of the Nazarene theologian named H. Ray Dunning whose evangelical & Holiness theology has been deeply enriched by his interaction with Tillich and MacQuarrie. So, it does seem to be possible to have one's views enriched by such writers w/o surrendering an evangelical faith. Because of my interests in Biblical studies, and in science & scientific method, Tillich's writings never seemed worth the trouble to me.
Thank you for your gracious response.
I think you are right not to overplay the Tillich link – though as you say, he knows a bit of his work. I doubt though he read Tillich's systematic theology as you have. As you will agree, Rob is a brilliant communicator and he has used some Tillich-like language at times for homiletical purposes.
Because I was part of Mars Hill for several years, I suspect that for Bell it is more of a linguistic usage and word-play then an actually theological existentialism — though I could be wrong. I suspect that speaking of God "deep within each of us" has very much to do with Rob's personal experiences. Anyway, just some thoughts.
Thanks, Nate. I do not believe that Rob Bell is a stealth Tillichian. He has apparently read some of the sermons with appreciation. I know some people like them. As I pointed out above, there are theologians whose work i appreciate who have been influenced by their studies in Tillich.
I never spent any time with Tillich because my theological interests are not congruent enough with his to make me think the time & effort would be fruitful.
Several years ago I read an essay online that spoke of the emergent movement as the "new holiness movement." (I know I could never find that essay now.) That sparked my interest. And, I do think we live in a time where some exciting new learnings and insights could (as they say…) emerge. And, there are a lot of hopeful things I see at Mars Hill. I like the worship that draws on ancient tradition and standard hymnody as well as more contemporary forms. I appreciate the emphasis on Scripture and on creative, fresh readings of Scripture. I appreciate the emphasis on spiritual disciplines. I appreciate the fact that people at Mars Hill are encouraged to think for themselves. Certainly, Mars Hill Bible Church has been a port in the storm for our family at a time when life in the United Methodist Church just became too toxic for us.
This is a great time to be doing theology. That doesn't mean I think there is some sort of Great Emergence going on ala Phyllis Tickle. I am agnostic about that. But, i do think this is a time of new insights and new connections. And, I'm all for it. I see the new Calvinist resurgence as a counter-reaction against these new insights & connections. I have no sympathy with it, but the push-back may be helpful in the long run.
And, that explains part of the reason I'm interested in Jeremy's rebuttal, as well. Yes, I felt his review of Love Wins was wrong-headed, and I felt this post (above) was over-the-top, but I am nonetheless keenly interested in the flaws and faults of the emergent movement — especially from someone who embraced it (in a way I never have) & became disillusioned. If there are mis-steps being taken, we should be alerted to this. So, while I don't appreciate Jeremy's recent anti-Bell campaign, I have by no means written him off.
I'm here to gain insight, not to be critical.
This may upset people, but I do not see this man who killed these people as evil…I see him as BROKEN. Life breaks people in many myriad ways. Some manage to continue to have a good life. Some act out in brokenness. It is this brokenness that GOD heals. This is why I do not believe in a GOD who tortures broken creatures in hell. GOD sees the absolute core of man's heart. He knows better than we do what has touched us and formed us in life. Horrific things can bring great good in the world. People who have worked through their brokenness are working in the world with GOD bringing wholeness and healing. I wrote a blog about the healing heart of GOD if anyone wants to read it: http://mysticbluerosegarden.blogspot.com/2010/03/…
I also wrote a blog on how GOD sees the heart of man: http://mysticbluerosegarden.blogspot.com/2010/07/…
We WANT GOD to judge with OUR judgement. We WANT an eye for an eye. But that is not what Christ taught us. And it is not the true heart of GOD.
All opinions expressed here are mine and I will not be broken if you disagree with me.
Sin is sin. Sorry Jeremy, but you sound like a total Pharisee in this post. We as sinners are no more deserving of heaven or less deserving of hell than this man who took the lives of others. Don't forget, it was our sins just as much as his that nailed our precious Savior to the cross. Every time we dishonor our parents, every time we tell a "little white lie", every time we profane His holy day, we hurt our Lord. Our sins put Him on that cross, His love held him there! Thank you Jesus! Thank you God for giving your Son. And praise God, sin is soon to be irradicated.
Andrea I think you totally missed the point of this post! This post has nothing to do with who is more or less deserving. But by the grace of God through Jesus Christ I would also be eternally separated from God. I'm not saying here that I am more deserving or this man is less deserving. The point is about the justice we all long for that will finally come…especially for cases like mass murder.
"What’s more: a person was evil; a person sinned; a person vandalized the shalom of God’s world by doing acts of death. These seven people weren’t simply “stepped on by the machine”—they were murdered by a person in rebellion against God."
OK, so here's problem #1: I find that you seem to intimate that his sins were somehow worse than ours. And, are we not all in rebellion as well?
Problem #2: There is not a whole lot of shalom going on in this world.
"He will make it right by calling on this man to account for his deliberate choice to rebel against God by ravaging seven of His Images-Bearers through murder. And, while we do not nor should we ever glory in the death or eternal punishment of any evil, sinful person, he will be punished—though he escaped the scales of earthly justice in this life by killing himself, he will await God’s in the next."
Problem #3: when you say "Image-Bearers", you imply that these people were righteous.
Problem #4: when you say "eternal punishment", you imply that he will be punished forever. I could write a very long persuasive essay on why this is not a correct, or biblical way of thinking, but, to make a long story short, this is where I'm coming from.
#3: I believe that Scripture is clear that every person on the planet is an Image Bearer of God…though that image is cracked, broken, busted. I did not mean to suggest that everyone NOW is in the same righteous, whole, good Image of God state as before creation. That would be Pelagian, a 5th century heresy! No people are not fundamentally good…they do not have a "God-given goodness" as Bell suggests. But I do think it's important to realize people have not lost their Imago Dei "quality." Humans are still Statues of God, but broken and busted statues.
#4: I know we disagree on this front. You believe in annihilationism, which I think is fine. I'm not persuaded that from Scripture of that position, but I can understand how it can be argued. And to be honest I have a much broader view of that statement "eternal punishment" that allows for that possibility outside of simply eternal conscious torment. I'm not so sure we should be all that concerned about WHAT that punishment will be, but THAT people will experience punishment…which I think still applies for the idea that people will simply cease to exist (annihilationism), a form of eternal punishment in and of itself.
Hope clarifies and thanks for the interaction!
Thanks for taking the time to clarify, I understand better what you intended. Just to hash out #4 a little more, you say, "I'm not so sure we should be all that concerned about WHAT that punishment will be, but THAT people will experience punishment…", I believe it is extremely important to know without a doubt what the punishment will be, because the character of God is on the line. Since the rebellion of heaven and the fall of man, all of heaven and earth have looked into this case. Satan, the enemy of our souls has stood in accusation of our Savior, he has accused the Lord of being unjust, that his devine law is unjust, and that it cannot be kept. He has accused God of being immerciful, and he wants everyone to believe that God is unjust, especially through a misinterpretation of scripture, causing men to believe a centuries old pagan myth about eternal conscious torment in the flames of a fire without end. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev. 20:14 KJV). If death is the opposite of life, then surely the unrighteous will cease to be alive as well as death will cease to exist.
#1: My fault. Didn't mean to imply that at all. Sorry for the confusion. I'll do better next time 🙂 We are all rebels, but as Christians Paul says in Romans our ID is NO LONGER as Rebel but as Son/Daughter of God. So I would not say believers in Jesus Christ are in the same "state" as those who are not. This does not imply better/more worth or arrogance. Just reality of new creation (2 Cor 5)
#2: Not sure exactly what this is in response to…perhaps the way I've talked about "vandalization of shalom"? That's the way Cornelius Plantinga talks about sin: culpable vandalization of shalom. Shalom is the way things are supposed to be (i.e. at creation before Fall); sin is the way things aren't supposed to be. I TOTALLY agree that there isn't a whole lot of shalom! All of creation is not the way it's supposed to be because of sin. Human sin/rebellion. And we all long for that day when God will finally put things back together in Christ!!
Hope that brings clarity…now on to #3 and 4 🙂
"Love wins." That's how I believe Rob would respond to this tragedy. There is hope because of the resurrection and the story of God with his people. As followers of Jesus, we know that only genuine love without requirements comes from God. For us, the better question may be how do followers of Jesus support these shattered families? I suspect the people of Mars Hill are already involved with these families because it is the way they understand the gospel.
Why is a question about behavior better than ones about beliefs? Read my post 2 days after this tragedy. I agree we need to support these shattered lives.
this is really pathetic jeremy. you've stooped to an all time low with this one. please move on to something of value. it is sad to me to think about how much time you have dedicated in your life to trying to convince others of how you feel about Rob Bell. as a "pastor" you should know better than to act this way.
Jeremy, this is a good question. One that, I think, gets at the heart of the possible differences between you and me (or you and Randy for that matter, though I should only speak for myself). Why is a question about behavior better than ones about beliefs? Without directly considering the situation of evil that happened in our city, you are correct to think that some of us, myself included, are more interested in behavior, actions, etc. as opposed to belief. But that is the first mistake in the rationale, for I cant seem to separate behavior from belief. I am less interested in what people say they believe, and more interested in what they do. Not because one is more or less important than the other, but because I am convinced that what we truly DO, IS what we truly believe. That is to say. I'll be honest, I lift this thinking from Stanley Hauerwas, who points out in his recent memoir, "I do not put much stock in “believing in God.” The grammar of “belief” invites a far too rationalistic account of what it means to be a Christian. “Belief” implies propositions about which you get to make up your mind before you know the work they are meant to do. Does that mean I do not believe in God? Of course not, but I am far more interested in what a declaration of belief entails for how I live my life."
Right on!
Nate I'm with you in this for sure: "I am less interested in what people say they believe, and more interested in what they do. Not because one is more or less important than the other, but because I am convinced that what we truly DO, IS what we truly believe." I'm not sure how this comment relates to this post…and I hope you're not saying I do not think both are important. I actually wrote above—in case you missed it, and to make it incredibly clear, yet again, both are important in my mind—that every single person on the planet will be judged for their "for their belief and behavior in [Christ]."
So again I'm not sure what you're saying. I will say that from the very beginning of the Church belief in specific things—specific "propositional statements" to use your language—are required for salvation. Active verbs like repent (which implies belief in sinfulness and need for), confess (which implies belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior—entailing an whole lot of OTHER beliefs about Jesus Himself), and believe (in the cross and resurrection) were voiced by Jesus Himself…as well as the early apostles. So why would we also not voice them today?
Specific 'propositional statements' become problematic when:
1) Every group of Christians have professed something a bit different , & thus these statements continue to divide us rather than unite us. As a result, Christians are known for being legalistic, less than forgiving, and full of judgement toward others who are different in belief.
We can argue what is necessary for salvation, but Jesus said 'believe in me.' That was it. We've added so much more… and the closer one lives to the academy, the more the rules and regulations.
2) When propositional statements are believed in one's head but not lives out. i.e. So we in America claim to care for the poor, but we fail to recognize and consider how our large homes, vehicles, buying habits, and lifestyle are incongruent with the biblical idea of greed and gluttony. So, we find ourselves judging others while not being willing to seriously tackle our own issues. This too flies in the face of the biblical text, but somehow evangelical pastors have learned to live with this sin as 'acceptable' in America.
As such, I find propositional statements to have a bit of value, but rarely do they disclose much of the truth of our real lived out faith. Following Jesus is lived in the moments of our lives when we share the love of God and the hope of the gospel. (I'll add that I doubt blogging, writing papers, or books on 'belief' actually moves the heart of God. On the other hand, lives of faith lived is the fruit of the Spirit.)
Although my comment is deleted now and also that to which it referred, I see why you can't follow my line of thinking. I was specifically responding to your constant apprehension toward liberal Protestantism, which was in one of your replies to someone above. I was suggesting that your reaction sounds as though it is set in the context of the fundamentalist reaction to modern liberalism. Unless you can clarify another context for me, I don't know where else to place you. To suggest Bell has merely bought into the Protestant liberalism you so forthrightly reject is to entirely miss the point of the broader Christian tradition. I contend that he is not using symbols in the existentialist manner as you suggest. Rather, he uses similar words, like ultimate reality or deep within oneself, to describe and communicate the very same gospel you and he share, that is, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
To your second point and last question. I am not saying we shouldn't also voice such propositions today. Further, to discuss as you were with Randy above, regarding those "in Christ" and those "not in Christ" is quite abstract in my framework of thinking. Even a Christian Universalist believes there are those who are "in Christ" and those who are "not in Christ." At least for now!! For those who are "in Christ' are witnesses sent on a mission and who will be known by there love, not by their suggestion that Protestant liberals bad.
This is not to suggest I don't have critiques of modern theology which grew up in Protestant liberalism, but that I don't think the answer is to get back to some sort of abstract notion of orthodoxy. I am all for the rule of faith, but as an interpretive tool not a set of propositions. This is where theology and interpretation come so close together. So let me put it a different way. I see it as a wast of time to rag on protestant liberals and / or emergent who have similarities with them. For they are only going to react to what they see you promoting, some sort of recycled fundamentalism.
Nevertheless, it is odd to watch your attitude and posture at a distance because it looks as though it has merely become a polemical political campaign against your former friends. I suspect that they feel as though you are suggestion they are not Christians — and let me be clear — they believe they are. But your rhetoric suggests you think otherwise. Sorry, but that is what it looks like from here.
Sorry about that Nate. You double-posted so I thought I deleted the double post…but apparently it deleted BOTH of them. I've restored it. Sorry about that!
Jeremy,
It was an awful, terrible day by all accounts.
Jeremy. Let's take your line of reasoning forward. Let's consider the possible fate of 10 year old Marissa Lynn Emkens one of the victims of the rampage. She suffers a horrific end to her earthly life. And though she is an image bearer as you say, perhaps she is not a professing Christian. So upon this awful, tragic death, one in which her last conscience memory may have been watching her aunt and mother murdered, she enters into a place of unquenchable fire, a place for eternal conscience punishment of the wicked (I assume you believe she was born 'in sin'). Being in sin she is no more worthy of heaven than her murderer if she is not 'in Christ'.
She is only ten years old. And this is okay?
And this is the justice of God?
Hi Daryl. Thanks for your interaction! Appreciate it. I have some thoughts that i think I'll put in a larger post. The issues you raise are very important…there are a number of issues here I want to further consider and hash out in a post.
Again, thanks!
Meaning of the Death on the Cross
Although Jesus did not die this death on the cross to atone for the racial guilt of mortal man nor to provide some sort of effective approach to an otherwise offended and unforgiving God; even though the Son of Man did not offer himself as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of God and to open the way for sinful man to obtain salvation; notwithstanding that these ideas of atonement and propitiation are erroneous, nonetheless, there are significances attached to this death of Jesus on the cross which should not be overlooked.
Jesus desired to live a full mortal life in the flesh on Earth. Death is, ordinarily, a part of life. Death is the last act in the mortal drama. In your well-meant efforts to escape the superstitious errors of the false interpretation of the meaning of the death on the cross, you should be careful not to make the great mistake of failing to perceive the true significance and the genuine import of the Master's death.
Mortal man was never the property of the archdeceivers. Jesus did not die to ransom man from the clutch of the apostate rulers and fallen princes of the spheres. The Father in heaven never conceived of such crass injustice as damning a mortal soul because of the evil-doing of his ancestors. Neither was the Master's death on the cross a sacrifice which consisted in an effort to pay God a debt which the race of mankind had come to owe him.
Before Jesus lived on earth, you might possibly have been justified in believing in such a God, but not since the Master lived and died among your fellow mortals. Moses taught the dignity and justice of a Creator God; but Jesus portrayed the love and mercy of a heavenly Father.
The animal nature – the tendency toward evil-doing – may be hereditary, but sin is not transmitted from parent to child. Sin is the act of conscious and deliberate rebellion against the Father's will and the Sons' laws by an individual will creature.
Jesus lived and died for a whole universe, not just for the races of this one world. While the mortals of the realms had salvation even before Jesus lived and died on Earth, it is nevertheless a fact that his bestowal on this world greatly illuminated the way of salvation; his death did much to make forever plain the certainty of mortal survival after death in the flesh.
Though it is hardly proper to speak of Jesus as a sacrificer, a ransomer, or a redeemer, it is wholly correct to refer to him as a savior. He forever made the way of salvation (survival) more clear and certain; he did better and more surely show the way of salvation for all the mortals of all the worlds of the universe of Nebadon.
When once you grasp the idea of God as a true and loving Father, the only concept which Jesus ever taught, you must forthwith, in all consistency, utterly abandon all those primitive notions about God as an offended monarch, a stern and all-powerful ruler whose chief delight is to detect his subjects in wrongdoing and to see that they are adequately punished, unless some being almost equal to himself should volunteer to suffer for them, to die as a substitute and in their stead. The whole idea of ransom and atonement is incompatible with the concept of God as it was taught and exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth. The infinite love of God is not secondary to anything in the divine nature.
All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. Jesus taught that service to one's fellows is the highest concept of the brotherhood of spirit believers. Salvation should be taken for granted by those who believe in the fatherhood of God. The believer's chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one's fellows even as Jesus loved and served mortal men.
Neither do genuine believers trouble themselves so much about the future punishment of sin. The real believer is only concerned about present separation from God. True, wise fathers may chasten their sons, but they do all this in love and for corrective purposes. They do not punish in anger, neither do they chastise in retribution.
Even if God were the stern and legal monarch of a universe in which justice ruled supreme, he certainly would not be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.
The great thing about the death of Jesus, as it is related to the enrichment of human experience and the enlargement of the way of salvation, is not the fact of his death but rather the superb manner and the matchless spirit in which he met death.
This entire idea of the ransom of the atonement places salvation upon a plane of unreality; such a concept is purely philosophic. Human salvation is real; it is based on two realities which may be grasped by the creature's faith and thereby become incorporated into individual human experience: the fact of the fatherhood of God and its correlated truth, the brotherhood of man.
Sad day. Sad post. You don't know me, Jeremy, and I don't know you. But I thought your post was pretty poorly thought out. It wasn't completely void of truth, and that's what makes it disappointing. It was, however, void of compassion, love , and power…real power that this world rarely understands. Your post was also full of vengeance. And that is what made it sad. Read the book again. This time, read it in a humble "Hmmm, maybe I don't know everything about God and the all-encompassing love, power, and compassion of Jesus Christ" attitude. I don't agree with everything in "Love wins", but I do know that Rob clearly stated his belief in the one and only son of God that died and rose to save the world. So, for now I'll discuss his views with my friends, and some day in a glorious new heaven and new earth …I'll discuss it with Pastor Bell. Matt