Re: Rob Bell: Universalist?
I finally got
Love Wins from my library and read it in about 2.5 hours this weekend.
Before commenting on it....
Thanks to Michelle, Matt, Rich, and others who posted about the book. Special thanks to Matt for explaining some stuff from BW3's (Ben Witherington III's) blog, where we discussed CI (Conditional Immortality) and regarding other things about Wesley and "Wesleyanism."
===================
OK, re:
Love Wins.
I generally agree with Rich's and Michelle's reviews. I read the book "straight through" without pausing much to consider technical points. This isn't how I usually read, as I often re-read passages for context; to consider what all is being said. I decided to do this "straight through" reading, so as to try to get the book's Big Picture. What is Rob Bell really driving at? (so to speak).
At one point Rob wrote that some in the "early church" took the universalist view (naming Clement of Alexandria, Origen, others). True. However, folks in this stage of the early church weren't the primitive (original) Christians. Rob didn't attempt to make a case that the primitive Christians were universalists. He merely explained that post-apostolic Christians held the view. That differing views have been held, and that we need not necessarily believe in ECT (eternal conscious torment). In this sense, Rob presented "options." In passing (at some point) he alluded to CI, and briefly touched on N.T. Wright's unique view. I was hoping for a bit more about CI.
I was somewhat surprised -- (though I had told myself to be objective about this book!) -- when Rob presented the 'usual' case for universalism, then stated (not exact words), "The more important question is not "Does God get what God wants?" but, 'Do we get what we want?""
He went on to defend "free will" and seemed to assume that we exist (in some sense) post-mortem, (along with our free will). Related to this is, in his appearance on the
Unbelievable! radio program, Rob conceded that ECT was "possible." So while Rob stops short of being an all-out universalist, he seems to believe that it is theoretically possible that at least some will be "saved" after they die. This may be some form of modified universalism. I'm not sure what one could call it. Rob Bell didn't call it anything. I guess he's just trying to get people to think. He's admittedly agnostic about hell (in an afterlife). But has some theories....
What I appreciated in the book was Bell's honesty. Asking questions that many or most of us probably think about but were afraid to ask.
Rob's Christology was "higher" than I anticipated. What do I mean by that? Rob presents Jesus as the transcendent and omnipresent Lord, Who is "over" all religions and "with" all people. Rob doesn't explain his view about exculsivism v. inclusivism in detail. He simply says Jesus is everyone's Savior. I can't argue with his "high" Christology, nor with Who the Savior is. Rob Bell just leaves it at that, though he clearly believes some who haven't heard of Jesus can be saved. To what extent or how many, he doesn't say.
====================
Well, I read this book rather fast, which I usually don't do. I think I got the "feel" of where Rob was going, what he was really trying to say. He wasn't 'saying' as much as he was 'asking'. The book left me with a good feeling. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because I don't have everything figured out (re: Hell, especially)? Or perhaps Rob's emphasis on the NOW part of heaven made me think of the present reality of it, and of Jesus in my life. And how I can help to stop "hell on earth" as Our Good God has done, is doing, and will do as we come into the New Heavens and New Earth.
Thanks!