After all that has been said and written about Bell's new book, “Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived”, Bell denies being a Universalist in a recent CNN piece entitled - "Rob Bell Punches Back at the Claims of Heresy".
How can this be when he clearly meets the guidelines for being one? Although there are various definitions for universalism, the term is not so elusive that it gives way to ambiguity if it is framed in an appropriate context. In Bell's book, he has claimed that hell is not eternal and that eventually everyone goes to heaven. This clearly meets an understanding of universalism as it is understood by some in a traditional sense and with that being said, Bell can easily be objectively understood as being a universalist.
From the CNN piece, however, Bell only denies the charge of being a universalist and does not expend any effort to provide a defense. The article, however, references an event where Bell expounds upon the idea of being a universalist. In the typical Bellesque fashion, Bell does not tell us what he believes and leaves all of the room in the world for ambiguity. As a means to put us at rest, we are told; "he didn’t believe God reaches down and sweeps everyone to heaven."
That's fine and all but how about telling us what he specifically believes without asking us (the audience) a million questions the same as he does in his book. Why doesn't Bell just come out and give an appropriate apologetic where he gives us a traditional definition of "universalism" and explain to us how he is not one because he, instead, believes..., etc. Bell won't do this though because it is not his style. He claims that he's not into controversy because it does not honor God. Bell claims that he is interested in the truth, life and inspiration.
Before you get all misty eyed about Bell's interest in truth, life and inspiration, never forget that these things do not mean the same to you as they do to him. Bell has proclivities for altering traditional terms as well as the Gospel account as it is understood in the realm of orthodoxy. For most of us, Jesus is the truth. The "life" is the life He gives us when He saves us and gives us a new heart and a new nature. For Bell, the truth and life is found in God's plan to restore this world; "God is passionate about rescuing this world, restoring it renewing it."
For most of us, the Bible gives us revelation pertaining to the after-life but for Bell, the Bible provides ambiguity; “I think it’s very very important to point out … [that] we are speculating about after you die,” he said." This is perhaps why Bell is so surprised to think that anyone could say with a reasonable amount of assurance that Gandhi is in hell. In Bell's theology, it should be quite the opposite according the the teachings of Christ; "Bell would not be surprised if he saw Gandhi in heaven. “Jesus was very clear. Heaven is full of surprises. That’s central to Jesus teaching."
It's ashame that Bell has such a disdain for orthodoxy. The Gospel is a beautiful account of the truth that gives life and this is inspiration to all that are found in Christ and to all that Christ is found in. Bell is so fixated on restoring this world that he is blind to the beauty and the good news that Jesus restores all of those that are found in Him. It is those that are found in Him that will be found in a New Jerusalem after this world has burned up.
This is not intended to be a mean spirited post. We should pray for God to open Bell's eyes to His marvelous truths and that they inspire Bell the same as they inspire us that are found in Him. We should pray for Bell to be granted repentance and give up futile efforts to re-define a Gospel account that does not need changing because it is perfect as it is told.
May it all be for His glory,
W.
No comments:
Post a Comment