And here follows the continuation.
Chapter 4
The chapter title is: "Does God get what Got wants?"
Bell begins by quoting various churches’ creeds from their websites where it reads, among other things, that the Church believes that the unsaved will be separated forever from God in hell. And Bell wonders who would be attracted by such a confession of faith and counters it with the ironic commentary on the Church's confession: "Welcome to our church."
I believe that much of the problem with Bell's theology is evident. There is a true, genuine desire to communicate the gospel so that it becomes attractive to people in a postmodern world. But in his eagerness to make the gospel understandable and attractive the language is altered, and unfortunately also the content so that it easily becomes "another gospel" as Galatians 1 strongly warns against.
Bell does not criticize the churches that believe in an eternal separation from God for having a false theology. He’s not saying what they believe is wrong. What he attacks is that they dare to talk about what they believe in even if it may be perceived as less attractive. Would it have been smarter to hold the faith but remain silent?
The main theme of the chapter is the question, "will God get what he wants or not?" What God wants, of course, is that all shall be saved (1 Tim 2). And Bell asks: "How big is God? Is He big enough to fulfill (meet) His objectives?" And he continues rhetorically "Will this great, mighty, glorious God fail in the end?" The answer seems to be obvious, even if it is provided mainly in the form of questions (98).
When I read this, I want to shout: "No, God must not have what He wants!". I don’t know if anyone would have liked to say it to one of the six million Jews who, following a long period of suffering were killed during World War II. Does God really get what he wants? Or the mother who slowly sees her baby starve to death because no help is found to get food for either her or her child. Does God truly get what He wants?
Bell continues his argument that the God of the Bible is certainly not powerless or helpless and that God really is not one who gives up (pg.101).
But love, Bell points out, will never force anyone. Love has freedom at its nature. Then Bell writes that after death there a "second chance" will be given to those who did not believe in God in their life time (pg.106). How much time they will have, asks Bell, and he then answers, “as long as necessary".
And then Bell summarizes his exposition; if given sufficient time God's love wiil in the end melt every hard heart, and every sinner will turn to God. However, since love requires freedom, no one will be forced.
Will all be saved or will some suffer eternal separation from God because of their choices? Bell said that on these issues we have no answers.
And then Bell returned to his original question: "Will God get what he wants?" And he comments that it is an important issue that should be discussed further. But Bell himself doesn’t offer any answer to the question (if he has not already done so in his previous reasoning). But there is one even more important question: "Will we get what we want?" and to which Bell answer a concrete, yes, (pg 116) we will live in the outcome of our decisions.
This chapter has proffered many at present to reason in the blogosphere and in newspapers whether Bell is a universalist or not. (Universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved). On this question Bell answers both yes and no. And presumably, he does so deliberately.
Chapter 5
The next chapter is called "Dying to live '(Dying To Live). And I think it's a really good chapter (or have I misunderstood what Bell meant?).
Bell speaks about different descriptions in the Bible that describes the effect of Jesus' death.
-One accused who is freed
-A relationship that is restored
-Something lost which is redeemed
-A struggle that will be settled
-A final sacrifice offered
-So no more sacrifice is necessary
-An enemy who is loved
Bell asks which of these images are correct, and answers that, to select a single image would be too "restrictive" to describe what happens on the cross (pg 129).
But it's not simply about Jesus' death. It's about what happens after death. And Jesus comes alive again. And this is the life principle. Through death to life. When we lose our life, we find it. That's what it means ‘to die is to live’.
As already said, a real good chapter.
PETER BARONOWSKY
Translation from Swedish: Dr. Sven Ljungholm
PS
This is not an attempt at a scientific analysis of Rob Bell's theology. This is a blog post. Blog entries typically express the spontaneous reaction to what we encounter in life. This is my spontaneous reaction when reading Rob Bell's book.
Sounds like an interesting book. However, there are soooo many books on my book list at the moment, I doubt I'll get to read it for a long time. I would though like to comment on my understanding of the topic.
ReplyDeleteHeaven - I believe that heaven is both here and now, and in the future (inaugurated (? - I always get that term wrong - it's my dyslexia) eschatology). We experience heaven here and now when our soul (which is eternal and exists outside of time and space) communes with God (who is outside time and space). St. Augustine has a brilliant exposition of this concept in his confessions. It is also fully realised in the future when our physical selves die, and our soul is freed to experience perfect and full communion with God. This is more akin to the Buddhist concept of universal consciousness. However, I have difficulty viewing heaven as a physical place, and I certainly don't believe that it is all about making life better here on earth - that's what the Sadducees believed. I can accept that our role is to try to emulate that experience of heaven here on earth - something to strive for - but the true experience is where our souls commune with our creator-God and each other.
Hell - It is interesting to note that our concept of Hell did not make an appearance in literature of any kind until around the middle ages. The ancient Jewish concept of 'Sheol' is simply 'the grave'. There is no real concept of Hell. Around the time of Christ, they came to accept the Hellenistic concept of Hades - the underworld - which is still not the same as Hell. When I was a Cadet, we had a doctrine teacher who suggested that Hell was simply spending an eternity separated from Christ in a constant state of de-creation. He based it on John 1:1-2 which says (along the lines of) all things exist through him (the Word), and apart from him, nothing exists - referring here to Christ as the 'divine Logos' or creative and sustaining force. I find no evidence for, and cannot accept a concept of a physical hell as is taught in theology today. I have heard a LOT of preachers and Christians talk about 'turn or burn' hellfire-and-brimstone preaching. So Bell is probably right to talk about it.
Having said all that, I do like what another FSAOF member once said (something like) 'I cannot accept that God would condemn anyone to hell, because I could never send anyone to hell, and I cannot accept that I am more compassionate and loving than God'.
Just my thoughts.
Yours in Christ,
Graeme Randall
Former OFFICER
Australian East
Dear Graeme, thank you for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI think very much like the explanation you received at Training School about hell spending an eternity separated from Christ.
And if we choose to live our life on earth seperated from Christ, why should we be forced do be linked to Christ after death?
Blessings,
Peter
I was going to hold off on my opinions until after all four segments of Lt. B's commentary were completed but after reading the above four comments on Hell I just couldn't wait any longer. If I have time I'll comment on a few of the Lt.'s other points at the end of his 4th entry.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with Peter, Sven and Graeme's theology officer at the Training College in Sydney on this one. After all we are talking about an existence beyond time and space itself that is related to the here and now only in so far as the here and now is a part of eternity. All that there is to describe what is beyond time and space is human metaphorical language.
I also don't understand how anyone can read the four gospels, claim to believe in Christ and yet not believe in Hell! For something that doesn't exist Jesus sure did seem to spend an awful lot of time talking about it. In fact, I'm pretty sure (at the age of 60)that I know of at least a few people who may be there right now (including some professional religious types)and for anyone who's reading this, if you're honest so do you!
The question isn't "Why would a God of love condemn anyone to Hell---especially when I wouldn't do such a thing to anyone myself as Graeme pointed out that a former once said on this site and which seems to be the question so many "with it" people these days are asking as a defense against a belief in Hell.
The real question is "Why would a God of Love condemn the unwilling to Heaven?!!" Nuff' said for now......
Daryl Lach
USA Central
P.S. One other point from a psychological perspective: For something that doesn't exist why do so many people continue to use the word Hell so casually in everyday conversation? Could the truth be that deep down, subconsciously in spite of all of their sophistication they're afraid that they just might be going there?
"You Must go Home By the Way of the Cross, To Stand with Jesus in the Morning!"