QoD: The Power of Love Shall Win the Day

“The cross becomes the sign that pagan empire, symbolized in the might and power of sheer brutal force, has been decisively challenged by a different power, the power of love, the power that shall win the day.

The question is then posed to us in the strongest and clearest possible way: Dare we stand in front of the cross and admit that it was all done for us? Dare we take all the meaning of the Word God and allow them to be reentered upon – redefined by – this man (Jesus), this moment, this death? Dare we address the consequences of what Jesus himself said, that the rulers of the world behave in one way, but that we must not do it like that? Dare we thus put atonement theology and political theology together, with the deeply personal message on one side and the utterly practical and political message on the other, and turn aside from the way of James and John and embrace the way of Jesus himself? Only so, I believe, can we even begin the task…of working in our own day with mature, Christian and sober intelligence to address the problem of evil which still harms the world that God loved so much, the world for which the Messiah gave his life.”

NT Wright, Evil and the Justice of God. 100.

Roger Olson’s Review of “Love Wins”

I don’t usually post full posts from other blog pages here. However, as Roger Olson is such a fantastic theologian and exemplifies what good, Christian scholarship and debate should look like, I want to post his review here.

The Promised Review of Bell’s Love Wins

Discussion of Bell’s Love Wins is now allowed here for those who can truthfully say they have read it.  If you post a comment about Bell’s book be sure to say whether you have read it.

I finally received my copy yesterday.  (Sometimes I think mail has to arrive in my city by Pony Express!)  I read it last evening and this morning.

First, it is obvious to me that early critics of the book were wrong and they owe Bell an apology.  Nowhere in the book does Bell affirm universalism.  (Let’s not quibble about what “universalism” means; we all know what the critics meant–that Bell was saying everyone will eventually be saved, go to heaven, and leave hell empty. He nowhere says that.)

Bell does say it is okay to “long for” universal salvation.  So did Pope John Paul II!  I’m sure some critics who jumped the gun and attacked Bell for promoting universalism without reading the book will come back around and use that to support what they said.  But they are not the same.  To long for universal salvation is not to affirm it.

On page 114 Bell says “So will those who have said no to God’s love in this life continue to say no in the next?  Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility.  People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future.”  And nowhere else in the book does he say that eventually everyone will say yes to God’s love.  His emphasis on freedom as necessary for love requires him not to say that.  Can he hope for it?  Who is to say he can’t?

The point is–universalism is the assertion that eventually all will be saved.  Nowhere does Bell assert that.

Bell continues in that chapter to say that hell is getting what we want.  This is simply another way of saying “Hell’s door is locked on the inside”–something I think C. S. Lewis said.  (Or it may be someone’s summary of Lewis’ The Great Divorce.)

Chapter 6 is about what is usually called inclusivism–that salvation through Jesus Christ is not limited to those who hear his name.  (I’ve discussed problems with restrictivism here before.)  I find nothing in that chapter that Billy Graham has not said.  (Go to youtube.com and look up Graham’s responses to questions from Robert Schuler.)

While reading Love Wins I kept thinking “This sounds like C. S. Lewis!”  In his Acknowledgments Bell thanks someone for “suggesting when I was in high school that I read C. S. Lewis.”

One thing I disagree with in Love Wins (and I disagreed with it in The Shack) is Bell’s affirmation that God has already forgiven everyone through Jesus Christ.  I believe God has provided everything for forgiveness, but forgiveness depends on acceptance of God’s provision.  I don’t know how to reconcile universal forgiveness with Jesus’ statement that the Father will not forgive those who refuse to forgive.  Of course, if “forgive” means “forgive everyone of the guilt of original sin,” then I can accept universal forgiveness (which is how I and most Arminians interpret Romans 5).  But I don’t think that’s what Bell means.

Those who accused Bell of teaching universalism based on promotion of Love Wins jumped the gun and owe him an apology.  I won’t hold my breath.

Vilifying anyone based on what you think they are going to say is clear evidence of bad judgment; it breaks all the rules of civil discourse.  It is part of what I mean by “evangelicals behaving badly” and illustrates what I call the fundamentalist ethos.

Perhaps the time has come for moderate and progressive evangelicals to say “Farewell neo-fundamentalists.”  There’s no point in prolonging the long kiss goodbye.  We are two movements now–fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists, on the one hand, and moderate to progressive evangelicals on the other hand.  This painful parting of the ways happened between the movement fundamentalists and the new evangelicals in the 1940s and 1950s.  It is happening again (among people who call themselves “evangelicals”) and the time has come to acknowledge it as, for all practical purposes, done.  It’s just a matter now of dividing the property.

Things I’ve (Re)Learned from the Rob Bell Saga

• Before we say, “I disagree,” we should be able to say, “I truly understand.” There’s no point in disagreeing with something we haven’t made sure we fully understand. When we disagree prematurely all we’re really saying is, “You’re not going to change my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

• Some people get offended by criticism no matter what. There have been good-critical reviews of Bell’s book. There have been bad-critical reviews of Bell’s book. The trick is to understand the difference, not just throw all criticism together in the trash-heap of “Rob-Bell-Haters.” And the other trick is to be able to take criticism without always seeing it as a personal attack. Criticism, when done correctly, can only make us better people.

• The word “heretic” is almost useless the way we use it. As are the words “orthodox,” “conservative,” and “liberal.” In the end, the way we use these words essentially says more about us than they do about the person we’re criticizing. In the Evangelical world, “heretic” and “liberal” are simply those who disagree with “me.” And “conservative” and “orthodox” are those who happen to agree with me. In other words, we’ve abandoned the actual definitions of these words for uses of these words that are polarizing and promote distrust and misunderstanding instead of understanding. Therefore, our uses of these words make them ultimately useless.

• Some people are heresy hunters. They’re looking for ways to denounce people who don’t agree with them as apostates to the gospel. I attribute this to a messiah-complex whereby they see themselves as the last true Christians on the planet. This kind of elitism is unfortunate and will ultimately lead to their irrelevance in our culture. And this makes me sad because their passion could be beneficial to the kingdom of God.

• Some people are just naïve. People will tack themselves to personalities instead of the gospel. They will defend a person regardless of what they say, simply because they like the person. Rob Bell could’ve denied the gospel and some people would’ve followed him because they love Bell more than the gospel. On the other side, Kevin DeYoung could’ve been an absolute jerk in response to Bell and people will defend him with scripture because they loved his polemics over Paul’s call to unity in I Corinthians.

To all such people, I ask this: Was Rob Bell Crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Kevin DeYoung?

• John 17 is completely ignored by most American Christians. We prefer disunity over unity. We prefer schism to an appreciation of diversity. We prefer ousting people from both heaven and the church over opening our arms as wide as God’s. And, guess what! The world was watching. And you know what they saw? Christians fighting…again. Isn’t it funny how every time we make national media it’s because we’re fighting for, over, or against something? So much for them knowing us by our love and unity.

• We are sheep. This whole saga was a marketing ploy by HarperOne. And it worked. We did exactly what they expected. They, and they alone, are the true winners in this. And boy did they win – last I heard Bell’s book was #6 on Amazon.

• We pastor’s have done a terrible job of teaching our people that the goal of salvation isn’t a good after-life in Heaven, but that Heaven begins in this life….salvation begins in this life. We aren’t waiting for Heaven; we’re co-workers with God bringing Heaven to earth. Until we get this straight, we will continue to misunderstand the gospel.

• Those who use the keys of death and Hell are often trying to unlock the doors of power. Do you want power over a person, a culture, or a movement? Just threaten to unleash Hell against all potential deviants. Not only will you end all rational discussion, but you’ll effectively control both those who are already convinced you’re right AND those who don’t think you’re right, but are afraid of you. People throughout the centuries have believed that the threat of Hell holds the potential to control empires. And they are right…until they are wrong. People can be controlled by the threat of Hell for a short time, but they can’t thrive under the threat of Hell…and sooner or later they will be so desperate for real, thriving life that they won’t be manipulated by fear anymore. The power of the gospel, then, is not in the threat of Hell, but the beauty of Jesus Christ.

• Rob Bell is apparently more of a danger to orthodox Christianity than a tsunami is to the Japanese coastline. Since we’re talking about Hell and all, I find it interesting that in the separation of the sheep from the goats, Jesus is clear that one’s eschatology (doctrine of the Last Things) is not the deciding factor in where people spend eternity, but rather, one’s response to human suffering is. I am saddened by myself and others who followed this saga more closely than we followed the tragedy in Japan, who have fretted over this saga more than we’ve fretted over dead babies in Japan, who have prayed more about Rob Bell than we’ve prayed for God’s presence in Japan. It’s time for me to repent.

Is there anything you’d add to my list?