Answering Rob Bell #1

Last night I read quickly through Rob Bell’s little book with the big splash, Love Wins. As I posted immediately on Facebook, I beg to differ – not that love wins, but that I understand “winning” differently than Pastor Bell . Those of you who know me personally or read my blog with any regularity know that I cannot walk away from a worthy debate (okay, any debate.) As my title suggests, this is only the first of what may be several installments. Installments first because the quantity of specific differences I find would force a book-length blog on my readers; second because I read quickly the first time and will read again at a more discriminating pace to assure myself that I have not misapprehended Pastor Bell.

I must begin by saying that I do not, at this time, believe Bell’s errors rise to the level of consigning him to the orthodox version of the hell he openly disputes. There are many things in Scripture which are not, nor have ever been mutually agreed upon by theologians. Think about baptism, ecclesiology, eschatology, charismata, perseverance of the saints, and so on. These are not issues we should use to divide or condemn. None of us humans (save One) knows all. I believe that Bell and other mistaken Bible interpreters will end up surprised by what they see following the removal of the glass through which we all see more or less darkly in this present age. Doubtless I will be as surprised as they.

The first, perhaps the fundamental difference I have with Bell regards his hermaneutics. That means I disagree with how he interprets Scripture. We have all heard at one time or another that the meaning drawn from the Bible is just a matter of one’s interpretation. This is true as far as it goes; the many sects of Christianity and the cults which orbit the biblical perimeter declare this to be true. What this “truth” ignores is that some people interpret the Bible incorrectly. There are rules of interpretation (hermaneutics) which apply to all literature, not least to sacred writings. If we believe that God exists as an intelligent, moral, sentient being who wishes to communicate with his sentient creatures through the written word (as the Bible clearly proclaims,) then we must assume that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret any particular passage or the essence of the whole.

Allow me to present a brief example. Shakespeare had Lady Macbeth say, “Out, damned spot! Out I say.” Because of my deep knowledge of the Bard and the culture of the 16th century, I can interpret that to mean that the Lady was disgusted with her pet Spaniel, Spot, and wished him to leave the premises. She no doubt considered the poor beast to be a hound from hell which had affected her mind with distressing, murderous thoughts. Prove me wrong; summon all the evidence that she is referring to a spot of imaginary blood, not a dog. I say it is a matter of interpretation. We cannot ask Shakespeare; the only clues to be found are in the text and are revealed by the proper application of the rules of sound interpretive practice.

We also have tradition. I know this is a dangerous word among Protestants. History has often consigned well-received traditions to the garbage heap. Remember the flap over the non-geocentric universe: church leaders killed people for proclaiming that the earth moves around the sun and not vice versa. Those church leaders obviously had their hermaneutics wrong. Even with this caution, I believe we must look very carefully at anyone who offers a new (or recycled, in Bell’s case) interpretation of Scripture which diametrically opposes the accepted wisdom of millennia.

Nor should we be fooled by Bell’s assertion that his soteriology (universal salvation)has been embraced from the beginning. So was Arianism, Manicheism, Pelagianism, etc. These were all tried and found wanting by sincere men of faith, some repeatedly. Even if Clement, Origen and Augustine did embrace universalism as Bell implies (an assertion I tend to doubt,) they too were human and subject to the same errors as we all are.

I will close where I began: I love Rob Bell with the agape of Christ, but respectfully disagree with his conclusions. If I am wrong and he is right, God will make it clear to me (Philippians 3:15.) Should I not hear from on high, I will present more detailed rebuttals in future installments. Or, I will start attending Mars Hill.