an open letter to rob bell's critics
Dear Sir and/or Madam:
Reading the New York Times last Friday, we came across an article covering the blogospheric firestorm stirred up by the upcoming publication of Love Wins, the new book by Rob Bell, a well-known Midwestern pastor at least loosely associated with so-called “evangelical” Christianity.
And so we read some of your criticism, your accusations that Bell appears to lean toward the doctrine of universal salvation (the idea that in the end, God will save everybody, not just a few Christians who believe the right things or do the right deeds). And we read your laments - some sarcastic, some heartfelt - that Bell has thereby lost touch with “biblical Christianity.”
But what does the Bible actually say about the scope of salvation? It's true that there are plenty of verses that seem to support the idea that God only saves a few. We’ve read Matthew 7, for example, where Jesus paints a picture of two gates: “the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Mt 7:14).
But on the other hand, we’ve also read plenty of verses that suggest the opposite. In John 12, Jesus says, “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32). Or again, Paul compares Adam’s fall to Christ’s rescue: “as one trespass led to condemnation for all people, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all people” (Romans 5:18).
Now, you know as well as we do that some people read this scriptural diversity as nothing but inconsistency, plain and simple, evidence that “you can get scripture to say anything you want” – and we’re sure you disagree with that conclusion. So do we.
Others read this diversity as a case of scripture interpreting scripture: that is, a case where one set of texts throws light on how the other set of texts should be read. The apparently universalist texts, for example, may be taken as the “key” that unlocks the meaning of the apparently non-universalist passages, or vice versa. We may not agree, of course, about which set of texts properly unlocks the other - but can we agree that both approaches qualify as "biblical" Christian thinking?
And yet there’s at least one other possibility here. Some consider scripture’s diversity on the question of salvation's scope to be not so much a complexity to be resolved as a tension to be preserved. According to this view, each set of texts perpetually unsettles the other, and so leaves the question permanently open – since after all, come to think of it, salvation is God’s business, not ours. In the meantime, if we get lackadaisical, the first set of texts can act as a goad to wake us up, reminding us that life and death are at stake in the choices we make. And if we get anxious or begin to despair, the second set of texts can be a solace, a reassuring comfort that in the end, “love wins.”
But since each set of texts perpetually unsettles the other, the upshot for us is that we aren't in a position to make grand, certain statements about the great mystery of salvation. That’s not our job. Our job is to hope and pray for universal salvation – starting with our own. Our job is to live and lean into God’s unbridled love – and if we can’t imagine divine love going down to defeat, or the Good Shepherd losing a single solitary sheep, so be it. For all we know, God won’t leave anyone behind, not even one.
And in any case, our job is to tend to our own knitting, as one of our grandmothers used to say. Our job is to eschew crass speculation about the destinies of others. Our job is to get on with living out lives that flow from the faith that you, dear critics, so fervently defend. In fact, even if your close analysis of scripture’s diversity here convinces you once and for all that it is utterly “impossible” for person X or Y or Z to be saved, at the end of the day you can only come back to Jesus, the one you and we seek to follow, the rabbi who puts it this way:
“'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' His disciples were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Who then can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible'” (Mark 10:24-27).
Sincerely,
The SALT Project
+++++
Thanks to Merry Faith for this cooler than cool shot!
Monday, March 7, 2011 at 09:50PM
Reader Comments (16)
amen!!
One of my favorite Rob Bell quotes says "The moment God is figured out with nice, neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God." I think there's a lot of truth to that. I cannot fully comprehend the mystery of salvation and I don't expect to in this lifetime, anyway. In some weird way, I'm grateful for the mystery. :-) Loved hearing your thoughts on the matter, Liz!
I second the "Amen". Out job is to ensure that our relationship with God is active and growing. Our prayer should be that others see God through us. Is it too simplistic to believe that God has chosen all for salvation, but some do not chose God? I don't know. I do know that God has carried me through my life, I cannot be me without Him. Despite my foilables, He has not abandoned me, and despite my anger and doubts, He has not ceased to exist. From the midwest, "ya'll have a blessed day"!
How wonderful and refreshing it is to read about the love of God and the wideness of grace rather than exclusive and unyielding claims about the unknowable and unattainable. What attracts me to Christ and the way of Jesus is the tension, dichotomy, and paradox that forever keeps the conversations going. As a Christian I find I can sit comfortably and freely in the vast cloud of unknowing. It opens me to the continual surprising nature of God who, in the end always urges me to love more. This salt has some flavor - No?
Thank you for these words -- and being a light to my path.
a breath of fresh air through a crowded and angry room
When I read this post it reinforces my belief that the only thing we should be certain and self-rightous about is that we should not be certain and self-rightous at all.
Thank you!
yes.
Thank you.
John 12:32 is a translation from the original language that in context means "all kinds of people" and not necessarily each and every individual.
Romas 5:18 communicates the opportunity for justification and life for all people. It doesn't mean all people are automatically included in justification and life.
Please be careful when taking Scripture out of context.
Call it whatever you'd like - the idea that God will accept all in the end is against His just nature. If we expect God to be righteous, fair, and just, God must punish for evil. Sure, that doesn't sound loving but I would contend that discipline and punishment is love when done right. God did send Jesus to save us from His wrath. We have all sinned and there must be a punishment for sin in order for God to forget the sin - someone had to pay the price. But Jesus unfairly experienced death on our behalf and because He was without sin, was able to destroy the destructive pattern and therefore, if we put our faith in Him, He will be the narrow gate into life everlasting.
You cannot claim God's sovereignty and negate it at the same time. Sure He has the power to save all people with any amount of sin they have, but that doesn't mean He will.
James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways.
Here is a critical review of Bell's book.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/
A god who overlooks evil (sin) and will not punish evil (sin) is not a good god but a bad god. This god does not exist. The one true God is so good He will not let even let our thoughts go unpunished. Hell is completely reasonable because our sin is against an infinitely valuable God.
Brian B.,
Thanks for your response and perspective. I see what you mean about hell being "reasonable," given God's infinite value, as you put it.
But here's the thing: grace isn't reasonable. That's what makes it "grace": it's free, unearned, a totally and completely undeserved gift. Salvation is *always* the salvation of sinners -- and so it's always a violation of sin-deserves-punishment logic. So the real question is not whether or not hell is reasonable, but rather how unreasonably far God's unreasonable grace will go.
Looks like I came late to the party here!
I just wanted to give you a sincere word of thanks for the thoughtfulness of this post. All the arguing and taking sides without trying to understand the other's position (or that there even could be another position) is truly disheartening.
There is no discrepancy with the verses you shared about narrow is the road, and Christ draws all people to himself. Christ died for one and all - but not one and all will chose to follow Him. What other scriptures do those who believe in Universal Salvation use to support their views?
First of all, in response to your post and other commenters/readers who might say this question is merely concerning semantics and not eternally important...I can't but say the Word wholly and gravely disagrees. For to claim that the Bible itself would suggest all people are ultimately saved is to claim that the cross itself is utterly worthless! And if there is a danger of preaching a different Gospel than that of Christ, Galatians 1:6-9 for instance will display that this is far more significant than "semantics". This is not something to shrug our shoulders at and say "well it's too big for anyone to understand."
It sounds much better to a man-centered ear that God would save all people. The man-centered person believes in the depths of his or her heart that we are all entitled to Grace, and also believes that it would be wrong of God to save only a remnant or elect group of people. And this means it would be wrong of God to send people to hell. After all God loves the sinner but hates the sin, right? God is love, and hating or eternally punishing evildoers would be contrary to that trait of God, no?
Here's the problem: that's a man-centered perspective. The God-centered perspective of Scripture (not from the words of Kevin DeYoung or John Piper or Rob Bell or AW Tozer or Joel O'Steen or Benny Hinn...but from GOD's words) states that NO ONE deserves to be saved (Ephesians 2 opening passage). That just one of us would be saved is an absolute miracle from Heaven. If a holy and eternal God punishes evil for all eternity, does that make Him less holy? If a good God who is all-powerful destroys evil for all eternity, does that make Him less good? Of course not, as BrianB. has already stated (as also does the Old Testament, 1 Thessalonians 1:6-9, Matthew 5:27-30, Matthew 13:47-50, Romans 3:5, Revelation 14:9-11, and others). The question we inevitably must ask is NOT "How could a good, loving God send people to eternal hell?" (That's what we ALL deserve! -Romans 3). The question we should ask is, instead: "How can a holy God possibly reconcile any evil sinners to Himself at all without compromising His holiness away from the presence of sin, His goodness without condoning sin, and His justice in eternally punishing sin?" That is the dilemma for which all of Scripture was written! The divine dilemma for which the only solution is Christ.
If it's arrogant in your mind for Kevin DeYoung or myself or anyone to claim Rob Bell could actually be wrong, or that some questions have defined answers in Scripture no matter the possible interpretations apart from the whole movement of what Scripture consistently says, so be it. But search the word for yourself beyond taking one verse from Romans 12 and one from Romans 5 or this or that....test everything in the Word! Does "all people" in each context automatically mean that everyone is going to be saved, whether they look to the cross of Christ or not? The rest of Scripture says no, so that verse is not saying that. A reference to "all nations," or "all kinds of people" as seen in Revelation 7 is more in line with the consistency of Scripture. How many times in the Old Testament do we see the constant pattern of God saving a few, and justly destroying the evil many and at a God-only standard of perfection? Read about Achan for one of many. Or the flood. It all points foreward, to the elect, the remnant. Read all of Romans 9, specifically to verses 14-28. How can anyone possibly deny that God saves some while condemns others? What other meaning could "condemn" possibly have?
This is an offensive message to the man-centered. It is not comfortable. Do you think I enjoy the idea of people suffering in hell? Absolutely not! All the more reason for the urgency evident in the New Testament to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ! And how thankful I am not only to be included by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (again, see Romans), but also to be adopted as a son of God (Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5)! We have been saved FROM something by no merit of our own, but standing on the righteousness of Him who died. To not stand on that righteousness is to choose condemnation (essentially, to not stand on the righteousness of Christ means to not have faith in his substitutionary atonement for our sins for the glory of God which is referenced in Romans 3:25). To say all are saved is to say that faith, the gifted requirement mentioned by Paul incessantly, not to mention straight from Jesus in John 3, for example, is NOT NECESSARY. So if Bell were right, it would undercut the need for Jesus' life and the necessity of the cross. But the Holy Spirit opens us to faith, and by that and ONLY in Christ are we saved (read all of John 10). On the cross Jesus bore the holy wrath due to me and due to you, so that we can be declared righteous before God and so that God's name will be glorified.
So does God love the sinners? Yes. Look at the cross. But does God also hate sinners? YES! Look at the cross! He loved us enough to die in our place, yet he hates us in our sin (see Psalm 5:4-6!). But praise be to God, whose just and righteous hate was poured onto Christ Himself, that we who believe in Him might be spared only in His grace (John 3:16)!
The Word does not say one thing and yet another in contradiction. We must choose to accept it or not. There is no fence-riding. How could we possibly be lax in our approach to God's Word?! Some things have nothing to do with opinion, and the Word is the utmost of them. The Word is clear. Search it! In its entirety! Instead of letting the "tension" hold, find the truth in the Word of God, where there is no tension amongst itself. Pray that the Spirit would reveal the truth to you.
Can we know everything of God? No. But the satisfaction of sitting in a "vast cloud of unknowing" concerning things that Scripture clearly states is a horrifying reality in the contemporary church. The Word is God's revealed will. We must not be lazy with it. And because we already have the truth from God on this fundamental element of salvation, I will stand behind Christ with Paul and Mr. DeYoung and Mr. Taylor and Brian B. and staunchly defend its integrity, and I pray that you will too.