I was wrong.
I figured I was in for a slick repackaging of annihilationism – the idea that God is so loving that he vaporizes the unsaved instead of sending them to hell.
I was wrong again.
Before buying the book, I read several reviews which described Bell as a recycled universalist. I figured that was probably an overblown reaction.
Strike three, I'm out.
Bell's book is an argument that eternity -both heaven and hell- begin here and now. At least one of these two eternities (hell) is limited to this earthly life.
To Bell, hell isn't a place where “billions of people spend forever somewhere in the universe trapped in a black hole of endless torment and misery with no way out” (110). Instead hell is just a “serious word to describe the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us” (93). He envisions multiple hells, all of which are temporal and temporary, never permanent. He also believes they are willingly chosen by people. They are not the result of Divine judgment:
“It is absolutely vital that we acknowledge that love, grace, and humanity can be rejected. From the most subtle rolling of the eyes, to the most violent degradation of another human, we are terrifyingly free to do as we please. God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it. We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free. We can use machetes if we want to” (72).
He repeats this theme in chapter four:
“Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God's ways for us. We can have all the hell we want... I see this every day, and so do you. People choose to live in their own hells all the time. We do it every time we isolate ourselves, give the cold shoulder to someone who has slighted us, every time we harden our hearts in defiance of what we know to be the loving, good, and right thing to do” (113-114)
But what does Bell think happens to the souls of those who have chosen hell? Frustratingly, he doesn't provide any answer of what happens, only his speculation of what does not happen. Specifically, he rules out any option which would prohibit God from redeeming souls after they die: “There must be some kind of 'second chance' for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime” (106). Thus we can rule out annihilation. And we can rule out the traditional protestant view of hell. But since he doesn't postulate a view, we are left to speculate.
Perhaps Bell's view is that the unsaved are held in some sort of place that's just “ok”. Perhaps he envisions a spiritual Howard Johnson's with a pool and continental breakfast: Something that's not so great that you want to stay, but not something so bad that you wish you were anywhere else but there. Or maybe he imagines God as a good parent who sends a bratty kid to his room. The kid may not like being restricted, but at least he's safe and has his favorite toys to occupy him until he calms down and apologizes.
For Bell, God's omnipotence requires that God have the ability to save somebody at anytime. Anything else would be incongruous with God's love:
“Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken and desperate for reconciliation, 'Sorry too late'? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: 'Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now it's too late' “(108)
Bell believes that God will ultimately redeem all of creation. He believes redemption is what God wants, and what God wants, God gets: The unsaved will come into relationship with God either in this life, or after death. No exceptions.
I've been pondering Bell's book for the past few days: What if Bell is right? What if hell is just an expression. Could it be that it's only the experience of bad choices we make? What if everyone ultimately gets saved like he says?
Jesus sent his followers in the world to make disciples (Matt 28:19). But he warned of the cost of going:
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:21-22).
And he was right. Millions have been brutally tortured and killed in the most hideous of ways because of the good news that they were delivering. What was this good news? According to Bell, the good news is that ultimately in the end 'love wins': What a person believes (or doesn't) has no bearing on eternity. Everyone gets into heaven. The only question is how soon they get to start enjoying it.
But does this view make sense? What kind of God would send people to live extreme hardship and die brutal deaths to deliver an utterly meaningless message?
“It is absolutely vital that we acknowledge that love, grace, and humanity can be rejected. From the most subtle rolling of the eyes, to the most violent degradation of another human, we are terrifyingly free to do as we please. God gives us what we want, and if that's hell, we can have it. We have that kind of freedom, that kind of choice. We are that free. We can use machetes if we want to” (72).
He repeats this theme in chapter four:
“Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God's ways for us. We can have all the hell we want... I see this every day, and so do you. People choose to live in their own hells all the time. We do it every time we isolate ourselves, give the cold shoulder to someone who has slighted us, every time we harden our hearts in defiance of what we know to be the loving, good, and right thing to do” (113-114)
But what does Bell think happens to the souls of those who have chosen hell? Frustratingly, he doesn't provide any answer of what happens, only his speculation of what does not happen. Specifically, he rules out any option which would prohibit God from redeeming souls after they die: “There must be some kind of 'second chance' for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime” (106). Thus we can rule out annihilation. And we can rule out the traditional protestant view of hell. But since he doesn't postulate a view, we are left to speculate.
Perhaps Bell's view is that the unsaved are held in some sort of place that's just “ok”. Perhaps he envisions a spiritual Howard Johnson's with a pool and continental breakfast: Something that's not so great that you want to stay, but not something so bad that you wish you were anywhere else but there. Or maybe he imagines God as a good parent who sends a bratty kid to his room. The kid may not like being restricted, but at least he's safe and has his favorite toys to occupy him until he calms down and apologizes.
For Bell, God's omnipotence requires that God have the ability to save somebody at anytime. Anything else would be incongruous with God's love:
“Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken and desperate for reconciliation, 'Sorry too late'? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: 'Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now it's too late' “(108)
Bell believes that God will ultimately redeem all of creation. He believes redemption is what God wants, and what God wants, God gets: The unsaved will come into relationship with God either in this life, or after death. No exceptions.
I've been pondering Bell's book for the past few days: What if Bell is right? What if hell is just an expression. Could it be that it's only the experience of bad choices we make? What if everyone ultimately gets saved like he says?
Jesus sent his followers in the world to make disciples (Matt 28:19). But he warned of the cost of going:
“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:21-22).
And he was right. Millions have been brutally tortured and killed in the most hideous of ways because of the good news that they were delivering. What was this good news? According to Bell, the good news is that ultimately in the end 'love wins': What a person believes (or doesn't) has no bearing on eternity. Everyone gets into heaven. The only question is how soon they get to start enjoying it.
But does this view make sense? What kind of God would send people to live extreme hardship and die brutal deaths to deliver an utterly meaningless message?
0 comments:
Post a Comment