The Question of Universalism: Why Rob Bell Asks All the Right Questions

Rob Bell. Photo by Gaylene Trethewey.

The Christian blogsphere is aTwitter over comments made by Rob Bell (Mars Hill Bible Church, Grand Rapids) in a 3-minute video advert for his upcoming book, Love Wins.

Fans flock to his Facebook page, his NOOMA videos have been viewed by millions, and his Sunday sermons are attended by 10,000 parishioners - with a downloadable podcast reaching 50,000 more. An electrifying, unconventional pastor whom Time magazine calls “a singular rock star in the church world,” Rob Bell is the most vibrant, central religious leader of the millennial generation. Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith - the afterlife- arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic - eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.

I wonder if Bell would take issue with the way his publisher phrased the bolded statement above (emphasis mine).  The Christian tradition has found plenty of theological room to speak of both the unlimited and unquantifiable love of God on the one hand, and the condemnation of sinners on the other.  Quite simply, it's because men and women are culpable for their sins -- eternal separation from God is our default status.  God does not have to save us, does not have to invite us into fellowship.  The fact that God does so is the definition of His grace.

Bell, of course, knows all of this.  In the video spot he is on about something a bit different, which is contributing to Evangelicals generally whipping themselves up into a frenzy over fear that he is about to come out as an advocate of universalism -- the belief that God will ultimately save everyone, regardless of whether or not they have submitted their lives to Jesus Christ.  Not that Bell actually has, yet.  Just that he's suggesting that's what will be in the book when it hits the shelves at the end of March.

Watch the video, then we'll talk about why Bell, rather than advocating universalism, may actually be asking all the right questions:



The highest-profile of Bell's responders is Justin Taylor (The Gospel Coalition), who has posted his response here.  (Note that Taylor says he has read sample chapters of the book itself, and so he has more to go on in evaluating Bell's theology than do the rest of us.)  Honestly, there isn't much grace here, nor evidence of a willingness to engage what Bell has to say.  (A small measure of props to Taylor, though, for backing off some of his stronger statements and for a later amendment to the post where he suggests he might not know with certainly everything that Bell believes on this topic -- though it is clear from the rest of the post that he's passed judgment already.)

That is what is most disappointing about the response to Bell from fellow Evangelicals.  Rather than take this as an opportunity to have a public dialogue about a meaty theological issue with profoundly real consequences in the pews, many have taken the 3-minute video and the book jacket description and summarily bid "farewell" to a Christian brother.  (Such was the tone of John Piper's Twitter response.)  Rather than step up to talk about why the gospel is still "good news" to those who hear only judgment and condemnation from One who purports to be love (1 John 4:8), they seem to be circling the doctrinal wagons.

If you are looking for more reading:

• Christianity Today blogs about the unfolding of the online debate / reactions, including very insightful comments from North Park University professor Scot McKnight.
• Kyle Strobel also observes that the big winner here is publisher HarperCollins, which may have hoped to provoke Bell's theological opponents and stir a little controversy.  Certainly they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
• John Coutts reviews Karl Barth's response (and refusal to respond to his more entrenched and vitriolic opponents) when he was accused of being a universalist.
• Tom Batterson has actually read an advance copy of Bell's book, and suggests that -- while provocative -- Bell doesn't sell out to heterodoxy.
• Kevin DeYoung, also of The Gospel Coalition,  responds to some of the critiques of Taylor, Piper, et al, and the way they handled things last week.  As we return to the Bell video below, take note of DeYoung's qualification: "Our deep dismay and the reason for issuing an urgent warning is not based on what he might say in the book. It’s based on what he did say in the video."

If that's where the fire is most hot, and if we aren't (yet) talking about the contents of a book most of us haven't read, then we can move forward and have a conversation about what's actually on the public record at this point.  On to the content of the video.  Is Rob Bell arguing for universalism?  Or is he simply putting a very fine point on the gospel of God's grace?  Bell asks these questions (I'll rely on DeYoung's transcription):

1. 'Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell?'  The question sets the agenda, and it's clearly a good one.  It's one that all of us, Christian or not, ask at some time.  It engages the "scandal of particularity" in Christianity -- that humankind is separated from God by sin and God has provided one way for our reconciliation.
   
   
2. 'Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?'  Here Bell makes the abstract question concrete and personal: If this salvation club is exclusive, how do I, and the people I care about, get inside?  If I'm near the outskirts of Christianity I've probably heard all of these notions, and more:  be "born again;" come to our inquirers class; go down the aisle to the alter and have a personal experience; or sit in your room and pray the Sinner's Prayer.  Is it something I do inwardly, in prayer, or outwardly, in demonstration that I want to turn my life over to Jesus?
   
   Or -- as I suspect Bell might be intimating -- is it not something that I do at all?
   
   
3. 'The real question [is], “What is God like?”'  Bell observes that "millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God."  This is exactly the right question -- not for believers established in their faith, who have a solid understanding of God's mercy and Jesus acting in accordance with the will of His Father.  These men and women already know that Jesus doesn't really "rescue us from God" (or hopefully they do, if they've been well catechized).
   
   Bell's question is right because it's aimed at nonbelievers, new believers, and -- most importantly, I think -- on-the-fence believers.  Here is a prominent (and charismatic) Christian leader who is acknowledging, in front of the theological "establishment," that these are hard issues to come to terms with.  Some people do seem to think that Jesus and the Father are pitted against one another on the cross.  God is the fire-and-brimstone guy who smites cities in the Old Testament, and Jesus is His cool kid who stops Him from smiting all us sinners.  This picture doesn't make sense when Christianity purports to worship the God of love, but it's probably more common than we would like to think -- even inside church walls.
   
   
4. "How could that God ever be 'good?'" Bell continues.  "How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be 'good news?'"  I don't think it's that Bell is suggesting such a God is not good, is not trustworthy; he's acknowledging that our theology often makes God look that way to others.

I'm not interested in arguing for (or against) universalism in this post.  I'm simply shaking my head at how Evangelicals are failing to give one of their own -- yes, that's right -- a fair shake and read the book before condemning its theology.  But what is worse, they are blowing a massive opportunity to engage those questions and show the rest of the world that they have some good answers -- particularly young men and women who have abandoned the Christian faith because they can't reconcile their ideal of a loving God with a God who judges and condemns the sinner.

Is Gandhi burning in hell?  More important to me and my friends is whether the best friend who is a great guy who grew up in the church but isn't really "into it" any more has a home in God's kingdom, whether the boss who is kind and generous and loving and Muslim is embraced by God, whether Grandma who smoked all her life and stopped going to church after Grandpa died made it over the finish line before she died.  The question of crisis is not as much whether "good people" are condemned to hell, but whether people that I love will make it to heaven -- people who, if they weren't in heaven, I don't know that I would want to be there, either.  How many thoughtful people can't or won't give the gospel of Jesus Christ another look because of its exclusivity?

Let's not give up the exclusivity or the offense of the gospel.  It is a stumbling block, for sure, and it requires the movement of the Holy Spirit in order to take root in the heart and mind of a person.  But what a great opportunity Rob Bell has given us to have the conversation -- with an audience no doubt packed with people who stopped listening to us long ago.  The message of the gospel isn't that there are sinners who deserve what's coming to them; it's that Christ died to save sinners.