Monday, May 02, 2011

pastoring and good stories and error

5681112304 Fa3Eb63994 MIt was suggested to me that part of Rob Bell's motivation for Love Wins is his pastor's heart, i.e., he has a great capacity for loving people. Seeing their pain in life's circumstances and/or rejection of the God supposedly taught by evangelicalism, he is shifting the emphasis to a better story for them.

He writes:
… “some stories are better than others. Telling a story in which billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out isn’t a very good story. Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn’t do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn’t a very good story. In contrast, everybody enjoying God’s good world together with no disgrace or shame, justice being served, and all the wrongs being made right is a better story. It is bigger, more loving, more expansive, more extraordinary, beautiful, and inspiring than any other story about the ultimate course history takes. Whatever objections a person might have to this story, and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for what God longs for. . . To shun, censor, or ostracize someone for holding this belief is to fail to extend grace to each other in a discussion that has had plenty of room for varied perspectives for hundreds of years now.” (112-13)
On the following pages he writes, "... gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out [in reference to the last chapters of Revelation]. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go." I'm lost how his defenders seem to think Bell doesn't hold to a view that people still choose Jesus as Lord and Saviour post-mortem. If he doesn't think this, why does he argue for it? Or where is his equally clear statement that this is error?

Bell then writes, "A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the 'in-ness' of one group at the expense of the 'out-ness' of another group will not be true to the story that includes 'all things and people in heaven and on earth.'" I think he is correct. But why espouse error to say this simple truth. There is always room for balance but there's no need to teach error to get there.

Bottom-line, a better story doesn't make it a right story.

Bell belies himself when he writes to “shun, censor, or ostracize” someone holding this view is failing to extend grace. Is he extending grace when he describes those who hold to a traditional view as a “cruel, mean, vicious tormenter” and who, if he were an earthly dad, should be reported to “child protection services immediately”? (175-76)

To be more clear, Bell describes this God as “angry, demanding, [and] a slave driver.” (185) He tells us that a “violent God creates profound worry in people. Tension. Stress. This God is supposed to bring peace, that’s how the pitch goes, but in the end this God can easily produce followers who are paralyzed and catatonic, full of fear.” (186)

No Rob, it paints a true picture of God who is glorious and who alone is worthy to be praised. Here's what the Bible has to say (but I'm foolish enough to think of it as inerrant):
  • “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph 5.6)
  • “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” (Romans 2.5)
  • “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3. 36)
  • “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” (Romans 1) And please note, this is not because you were 'lucky' enough to be born in the right place or time.
But Bell dismisses these writing, "…it’s important that we don’t take Jesus’s very real and prescient warnings about judgment then out of context, making them about someday, somewhere else. That wasn’t what he was talking about.”

Rob, if you want to correct an imbalance, try as many evangelicals to teach truth, At The Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller said, “Its not that God’s love wins and his holiness loses. On the cross all of the attributes of God win.”

Or Mark Driscoll, “Don’t set Gods attributes against each other. God is holy AND loving. Love is not God.”

Or try some Scripture ...
  • “And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night.” (Rev 14.11)
  • God’s “judgments are true and just” ’ (Rev 19.1–2).
  • Jesus Christ is the one who will judge the living and the dead. (2 Tim. 4.1)
  • “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25.46)
  • “For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality” (Col 3.25).
  • “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” ’ (Rom. 12.19)
  • In Revelation 6.16-17 we read sinners will cry out “o the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of rhim who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for sthe great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”
But now here's another problem with Bell, he seems to contradict himself and whenever one questions Bell his defenders are quick to point to these contradictions as clarifications. I however don't see this as correction to the quotes above, they're just the ramblings of a conflicted, confused man who is taking away from at least part of the truth of the Gospel.

Bell writes, "We crave judgment, we long for it, we thirst for it. Bring it, unleash it, as the prophet Amos says, 'Let justice roll on like a river'." Is he lacking grace here? Actually, no ... because he has an altogether different view of judgement, heaven, and hell. He's not really contradictory, he's simply wrong.

2 comments:

Chris L said...

"But now here's another problem with Bell, he seems to contradict himself and whenever one questions Bell his defenders are quick to point to these contradictions as clarifications."

Rather, I think, that many of the "contradictions" come from him pointing out different views (which naturally contradict one another). The problem arises when you try to pit them against each other as if he believes all of them (and therefore, seems contradictory).

Bottom line: Eternal conscious torment is primarily a product of Protestantism, and isn't the only Biblical view of hell and the afterlife. So why we would choose it as our model of certainty and then build the Gospel presentation around it escapes me (and apparently Bell, as well). It certainly and most positively wasn't the view of the early church, particularly the churches that began with Paul's conversions in the synagogues. And even in your own church tradition, Luther taught soul sleep and annihilation as his belief in the afterlife.

"I'm lost how his defenders seem to think Bell doesn't hold to a view that people still choose Jesus as Lord and Saviour post-mortem."

I still took it, in LW, to be one of the possibilities, and - in interviews since then - he's said that he only sees that as a possibility within Christian tradition, but that none of us know. And again, if you look at your own church tradition, the Harrowing of Hell and witnessing to the souls in prison is taught, and that is a post-mortem conversion for (at minimum) those who came before Christ. What about infants? Or the mentally disabled? Or those who never heard about Christ in the first place?

The truth is, we don't know. And admitting we don't know and that we leave this up to God seems to be a humble and a Christian position.

ricki said...

Chris - my thoughts:

1) I've read good books comparing and contrasting opposing views on a variety of topics. This wasn't one of them. If that was truly Bell's goal, I think he missed the mark. He used no uncertain negative language when speaking to one view and positive language in regard to another. As noted before, we seem to have read different books ... but that's not uncommon in our world.

2) My church tradition is Association of Vineyard Churches. I recognized my need for salvation in '79. Due to college, moving, etc. didn't settle on a "church flavor" until '87. I've been Vineyard until about a year or so ago. Now I'm not sure. I don't associate with any denomination.

3) I've mentioned elsewhere that I can more readily buy into annihilation over what I perceive Bell to be offering.

4) I find the view I 'settled' on to be the most Biblical (which I realize is subjective but that's my opinion) and contrary to what Bell and others say, the most glorifying to God. I appreciate that others don't share that view.

reftagger