Heaven by Rob Bell

The first question Bell proposes is in relation to the staggering number of people who won't "make" (my emphasis) it to heaven.

I would say that is what we don't know. We don't know how God has been speaking to people and how they have responded. Whatever light he has given them can either be accepted or rejected. we don't know how many or how few will be in heaven. All we know is that the only way to the Father is through Christ, which Bell affirms. Like Bell I don't have a clue about where Ghandi is (or Martin Luther King Jr.).

He goes on to raise a multitude of questions in the first chapter. And some of those questions I do wonder about myself. Like the "personal relationship" one. What does that even mean? But I'm not going to dive into all the Christanese he exposes. I, too, think we should explain things better rather with the insider jargon.

Heaven. "It's somewhere else, or is it right here and now?" asks Bell. Bell begins with the story about the rich man who comes to Jesus asking about eternal life. Bell explains that Jesus' answers the man's concerns which is not "with how to go to heaven," but "how to have more responsibility in the age to come." I would agree with Bell in that the man is not asking how to go to heaven. I think the man is asking about eternal life and how to get it. I don't see the man asking for how to be a good citizen in the world to come. Bell suggest that this is what Jesus is getting at. Live to be a better person now earns you more responsibility later. "Jesus takes the man's questions about his life then and makes it about the kind of life he's living now" (p41). If anything Bell is at fault of being a postmillennialist. He equates the prophets' sayings with literally heaven on earth (p33). A premillennialist does not disregard the new heaven and the new earth imagery. I think most would agree how we live now is important.

Bell says that the man went away because he had not yet understood that greed could not enter into the age to come. But even still, the man went away. We don't know if he ever turned back to God. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I think Jesus left open the possibility that he didn't.

In defining "heaven," Bell goes on to say that it is just simply a substitute for "God." (p42) I will say that I'm still undecided on this. Kingdom of heaven = kingdom of God. This will need some more thought. He adds, "Heaven is that realm where things are as God intends them to be." (p42). The last one is easier for me than the first definition. The story of the Bible is when God's will will be done on earth as it currently is in heaven. Heaven then is "partnering with God to make a new and better world..." (p47) Well, as subversive as this image is of heaven, it certainly is not a new image. Therefore, many people who have held and are holding to this view, are considered orthodox. Why not Bell?

In reference to judgment, Bell states that heaven confronts us with our incompleteness and that we must have that "burned" off. I would agree. Some will be left with a lot, others a little. We have to be fitted for heaven. I would call this the judgment seat of Christ.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about how Bell defines "aion". He gives us two definitions. 1) an era of time with beginning and an end. 2) an intensity experienced that transcends time. I'll admit I've not looked at the word/concept in depth. But a quick glance at BDAG of "aion" states that the word means, "long period of time without reference to a beginning nor an end." Secondly, it means "eternal." Bell wants us to believe that eternal and forever are not the same thing. In my opinion this is the closest he comes to being a universalist. If eternity is just a period of intensity (in judgment, perhaps) then one goes through it and is then relieved from it. I don't think Bell ever goes quite that far. But I would say he comes close to advocating purgatory indirectly rather than universalism directly. And for that (i.e. advocating purgatory) we can blame him. If, in fact, he does advocate an intense judgment then release.

And I tried to ignore the Rob Bell hype

Rob Bell. A name associated with controversy. So, when people started the firestorm of blogging against him, i was curious what the fuss was all about.

Personally, I was turned off when I saw my first NOOMA video. It was the one where he is with his son and they get caught in a rain storm. I thought it was creative but just not for me. So, when I heard of Velvet Elvis I paid no attention to it.

But I did start to warm up to Bell when in Portugal. He had made more NOOMA videos, and I was invited to attend the launch of a Bible study among some pretty tough and rough athletes there. Through cursing and beer drinking, it was one of the liveliest Bible studies I've ever been apart of. These videos were excellent spiritual conversation starters. I still didn't like the videos themselves. But what I saw come from them surprised me. So from that point forward, I decided to let Rob Bell be. He was advancing the kingdom more than I was, and who was I to say anything against what God was doing. God was (is) using Bell.

He's had several other books come out of which none I've read. But when all the Reformers began denouncing him as a heretic for his latest views in Love Wins, I had to see what the fuss was about. If the Reformers didn't like him, he may be my new best friend. Well, I couldn't afford to buy the book. So, I thought I would just ignore all the fan fare. But just the other day it showed up at the local library.

It was an easy read although written like Bell was talking. When I finished I was left wondering what all the fuss was about. Bell never does explicitly say what he believes exactly about heaven and hell and judgment. He comes close but never actually admits to being a universalist.

So, as I blog about the book I will try to keep in mind that he's just trying to get dialogue started about the issue. I could try to comb out Bell's personal view of universalism, but I don't think that would be beneficial. Instead I just want to talk about what he actually says.

Book blogging is for me the hardest. You have to assume the person has not read the book, and even if they have you have to put your comments in some sort of context. And this does not make for brevity.

This book is about "...some of the dominant stories that are being told as the Jesus story...[A lot of people] have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better...This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy..." So, now we know what we are about to read. He wants an open discussion on the topic.

Since this is already a long post. I will stop and continue as I work my way through the major stuff of the next 200 or so pages.

Universalists come forward

I know (or at least I think I do) the spiritual background of a few (surely not all) of the readers to this site. There are Assemblies, Baptists, Anglicans, a couple of agnostics/atheists, a few Reformers, those searching, among others as well as one maybe two Universalist-Unitarians.

Recently, I discovered another person who has become a Universalist (and I am assuming an Unitarian also). I have invited Christian hard-rock/metal lead vocalist Dale Thompson of Bride to talk about (and clarify if he wishes) his universalism. Of course, I hope you all join in also. I will ask that we all play fair whether we agree or disagree.

Dale is my guest here, and I know he will be respected by everyone.

Dale has asked the question, "Did Jesus die to appease an angry God?" His answer is no. So, I'll ask you, "Did Jesus die to appease an angry God?" So we are not caught up in semantics, can I rephrase it, "Did Jesus death appease the wrath of God?" if that is not, in essence, what Dale was asking, he can correct me.

Secondly, Dale has offered some "different" (but certainly not outside of a normal understanding of universalism) interpretations on hell. Basically, "hell" is for "Complete restoration and reconciliation."

Thirdly, are there any Scriptures to suggest the doctrine of universalism is correct. Here are the major ones:

• Acts 3:21
• Rom 5:28-29
• Eph 1:9-10
• 1 Cor 15:22

I have examined this doctrine before, in my former seminary life. I read a little John Murray, but was not convinced at all. It sounds very nice, that every person who has ever been conceived will make it into heaven. Therefore, it doesn't really matter which little god you follow, they will all lead you to "God" in the end.

As it has been stated before me by those much wiser than I, in my heart of hearts I want universalism to be true, but there just isn't any Scriptural basis for it. Now, I am not saying that to pick a theological fight with anyone. If I wanted to pick a fight, I wouldn't pick on the loving universalists (Unitarians). Most of the ones I know would make perfect neighbors. If I wanted a fight, I'd pick on my Reformed brothers. They love the fight and are always up for it and will fight and fight and fight. And who can blame them, they are the elected ones. So, even though the Reformers and the Universalists are polar opposites (in more than one way), they share a huge commonality, that forces me to not believe either one of them's system (yeah I know it ain't good English). They both believe that God will and desires to over ride the free-will he has given his Creation. And based on that, I can't be a Calvinist nor an Universalist (and especially not a Unitarian-but that's for another time).

For some reason I keep hearing..."And she's climbing the stairway....to...heaven...." Smile, God still loves both of us.