Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins, was stirring up controversy before it even hit the shelves. Now that it's been out for about three weeks, more and more folks are weighing in on the discussion. I've not read the book and probably won't. My reading list is too long already. But I have listened to some of Bell's sermons and watched some of his videos. Based on what critics of his new book are saying, it seems that he is suggesting that at the end of time, all will be redeemed and that God will not torture people in hell for all eternity. That is, Christians are up in arms because they perceive Bell to be preaching universalism.
The criticism aimed at Bell by folks who would probably consider themselves conservative Christians has ranged from simply "unorthodox" and "liberal" to much more intense, accusatorial, judgmental, and in my opinion, dangerous. Well-meaning people have claimed that Bell is guilty of blasphemy and heresy. It has been alleged that he is betraying the gospel. A few days ago, I read a comment by an educator at a Christian high school that Bell was a false prophet being used by Satan himself to deceive otherwise faithful believers, and this educator had not even read Bell's book! How foolish and irresponsible!
It strikes me as somewhat prideful to presume to know what is orthodox, particularly when one's beliefs are so dependent upon the family to which she was born and the geography in which she was raised. How much more is it arrogant, self-righteous, prideful, and, as I said, dangerous, to pass judgment by labeling another follower of Jesus a false prophet, a blasphemer, and an agent of the devil? Great care must be given to the language we employ when evaluating the beliefs of others, and such reckless and irresponsible condemnation of Bell based on his alleged views on hell speaks more to the character of the accuser than to the validity of Bell's beliefs.
Assuming that Bell does in fact argue that there is no hell, that God will redeem everyone, that all shall be made well, it troubles me that Christians are offended by such a position, going so far as to say it is antithetical to the gospel. If it turns out that God's love, grace, forgiveness, hospitality, and compassion for the errors of men is that expansive and inclusive, is that not good news? Do I desire God to forgive my sins but not those of my neighbor? Is my thirst for vengeance so great that I am offended by the notion that God would save people who are not like me, who have not been taught as I have, who do not believe as I do, as though my belief system is something I constructed on my own and for which I merit a reward? Surely a true disciple of Jesus cannot harbor in his heart such a desire to see others, any others, suffer. No, the thought of a God who is Love Itself and will redeem all of humanity is good news indeed, not a betrayal of good news.
Perhaps it is just human nature to draw lines. After all, it seems logical to say that there is no "in" without an "out." And drawing lines can be a source of a great sense of security, for as long as I'm the one drawing the lines, I'm always in, always on the safe side, always right or "orthodox.". It's the others who are out, lost, wrong. Are we so addicted to drawing lines that we cannot abide the thought of a God who does not, who welcomes all "in?" Would we rather attack Rob Bell than even stop to consider his point of view?
No one knows for sure what will happen at the eschaton. However, when I was last at the Abbey of Gethsemani monastery in Kentucky, a monk told me in passing that he believes that God will save us all, period. Coming from a man who has abandoned everything that passes for normal in this idolatrous world in order to devote his entire life to prayer, to studying the scriptures, to being silent in the presence of God, those words should carry some weight. Before I cry "liberal!" or "unorthodox!", much less "false prophet!" or "Satan!", I should probably take time to consider that he just might be right, and that this would be a remarkably good thing.
