Answering Rob Bell #2

In my last post I noted that I had read quickly through Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. I made some initial observations at that time which can be found at Answering Rob Bell #1. I have since taken a closer look and there is, as I remarked before, much more to say. What follows is my second installment.

I promised in my first response to identify my differences with Pastor Bell’s interpretation of Scripture. However, there is yet one general matter which I feel needs to be addressed. On pages 106 and 107 Bell says, "There are others who… insist that there must be some kind of ‘second chance’ for those who don’t believe in Jesus in this lifetime…. And then there are others who ask… why limit that chance to a one-off immediately after death?... At the heart of this [second chance] perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence…. And so, beginning with the early church, there is a long tradition of those who believe that God will ultimately restore everything and everybody." To support this perspective, Bell quotes Jesus, Peter and Paul saying everything will be renewed, restored or reconciled (Matthew 19; Acts 3; Colossians 1.) This is not a correct application of these verses, and I will say more on that in my next post.

At this point, because this seems to me to be the central assertion of Bell’s position, I think it must be thoroughly examined. I note that Bell grounds his legitimacy on the opinions of “others.” I will grant that he mentions heavyweights like Clement, Origen and Augustine among the “others.” The precise position of these early church fathers is less clear than Bell asserts, but whatever they believed, they were quite human and therefore fallible. If one is to assail a long held, fundamental belief of the church, Scripture must be the basis for the attack, not the opinions of “others.” After all, many beliefs have followers today who trace their beginnings to the early church: the belief that Jesus is not God, or not man, or not co-eternal with the Father, and so on. One need not take a Dan Brown flight of fiction to find ancient heresy dressed in modern clothes.

Bell tips his hand a few pages later saying, “It’s important that we be honest about the fact that some stories are better than others…. everybody enjoying God’s good world together with no disgrace or shame… is a better story.” No argument here. However this ignores the fact that “stories” can be either true or false. The false stories are called fiction and have many worthy uses. The true stories are called history and must be carefully parsed to learn everything we can about the world we face both now and in ages to come. We ignore the uncomfortable true stories at great peril; they have as much to teach us as the “better stories.”

I would have hoped Pastor Bell could have made a better argument than he has. Saying that many others think this is true and that his version of the story sounds so much better than the old version does not therefore make it true. Sadly, I fear Rob Bell has fallen in with the postmodern philosophers who believe that the truth of what one says is less important than the attractiveness of what one says. The end of this line of thinking will be the abolition of sin altogether; that will make the story even better. It also obviates the need for the cross and cheapens grace immensely. Bonhoeffer would be horrified. I cannot go down that road, nor can I imagine I will be at Mars Hill anytime soon.