We are having the same old universalism discussion again right now because some mega-church pastor has discovered that it sells books. Let me try to come at this question from a completely different angle.
I propose the thesis that the main theological problem with popular ideas of universalism is that they ultimately make our relationship to Christ something less than the most important issue we face in life.
Why do I think this is so?
Typically, the line of debate goes like this: Well, maybe I can accept that bad people like Hitler might be in hell, but what about Ghandi? What about my grandfather who was not a Christian but was a good family man, hard-working and decent? What about the guys at Rotary Club? What about - and the list goes on.
Think about what is being said here. Hitler is bad so he is in hell. Grandpa is good so he can't be in hell. The criterion for who is in hell and who is not is now who lived a good life. If this theology is acceptable than the Pharisee in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Publican was hard done by at the hands of Jesus. (Luke 18:9-14) Jesus must have been some sort of extreme fundamentalist in condemning such an upstanding, religious man.
Is living a comparatively good life - for your day and age and society - and maybe a bit of moral heroism sprinkled in here and there enough for salvation? What happened to Rom. 1-3? What happened to "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God?" (Romans 3:23) Why did Jesus bother to come and die anyway?
Usually, when this problem becomes apparent to would-be universalists who don't want to lose their Evangelical audiences completely, the next step is to begin speculating on the possibility of hell being eventually emptied by the love of God drawing everyone to Himself.
What this does is to make life basically unserious: "Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we don't exactly die, we just move on to a stage in which it will make a lot more sense to be religious than it does in this life."
Is this life really where issues of eternal destiny are settled? The whole Bible seems to think so and the Church has always operated on this premise. To operate on any other seems to me to be basically dangerous and unserious.
But that is what universalism is about: making this life and our relationship with God into a lifestyle choice, an option, something we can take or leave. That is the real problem with universalism. It makes faith in Christ less than the most important issue we face.
Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Universalism. Show all posts
Monday, April 18, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Responding Appropriately to Rob Bell
I have not commented on the Rob Bell controversy mostly because it is a classic example of modern, capitalist, marketing campaign hype by a megachurch star/businessman. If you conclude from that assessment that I do not take Rob Bell seriously as a writer and theologian, you would be correct. So to respond with serious exegetical, philosophical and theological arguments to a marketing campaign would be inappropriate.
Fortunately, however, someone with some real creativity has responded to Rob Bell in a completely appropriate manner: humor.
Below is the Rob Bell video promoting his new book, Love Wins. If you have not seen it yet, you must watch it first in order to appreciate what follows.
Now for the response. (HT to The Brooks at City of God.)
A brilliant, pitch perfect, piece of satire. Nothing left to say.
Fortunately, however, someone with some real creativity has responded to Rob Bell in a completely appropriate manner: humor.
Below is the Rob Bell video promoting his new book, Love Wins. If you have not seen it yet, you must watch it first in order to appreciate what follows.
Now for the response. (HT to The Brooks at City of God.)
Robbed Hell - C.A.S.T. Pearls Presents from Canon Wired on Vimeo.
A brilliant, pitch perfect, piece of satire. Nothing left to say.
Friday, March 18, 2011
A Serious Theological Interview on MSNBC: Now I've Seen Everything!
The internet is buzzing with controversy over yet another Emergent Church pastor with an "edgy, new book" questioning something the Church has affirmed for 20 centuries. So Rob Bell has a book at #4 on Amazon that may or may not teach universalism, if it actually teaches anything clearly, which seems to be in question. I have not read the book, but I have followed the reaction to it with some amusement because I've seen the same movie before with different characters.
I did see this interview of Rob Bell by Martin Bashir at MSNBC (see below). The interview is astonishing because it features an interviewer asking tough questions of a trendy liberal type instead of just lobbing the usual soft balls and sneering at conservative doctrine and conservative Christians. I thought is was outstanding journalism and MSNBC ought to be commended for rising above its usual liberal bias.
The interviewer, Martin Bashir, asks Bell to clarify if he is or is not a universalist. Bell refuses. It appears that the marketing strategy of the book is to claim to be (1) in the mainstream of Christianity and (2) pro-universalism in a vague manner. It seems to be "working" from a sales and marketing perspective and Bell stays right on script. The only problem is that he looks foolish, evasive and dishonest when confronted by an interviewer who really tries to get to the bottom of what he actually believes.
A partial transcript can be accessed here. Kevin DeYoung's 20 page review of Bell's book, which Bashir quotes in the interview, can be accessed here. Paul Edwards has a very interesting 30 minute interview with Martin Bashir about the whole incident, which can be heard here.
Some bloggers have accused Martin Bashir of being biased against Rob Bell just because he attends Tim Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. It figures; when you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger.
Bashir answers Edwards' question about this by asserting that the job of a journalist is to get at the truth on behalf of the audience and that his personal beliefs have nothing to do with that duty. Quite right. The issue that Rob Bell's supporters have to deal with is not whether Bashir was or was not of one opinion personally or the other. Suppose he was completely opposed to Rob Bell; the question still is why does Bell do so much squirming and equivocating instead of answering clearly and with calm conviction? Why is Bell so reluctant to answer a straight-forward question? In the interview, he looks much more like a politician than a pastor. In fact, he looks like Romney answering questions on health care at a Tea Party rally! The question is: why?
Bashir opines in the interview that Bell is using the medium of writing to work out his own anxieties, insecurities and unresolved issues from his own conservative upbringing. When Bashir asked Bell if this was true, Bell owned up to it rather than denying it. In Emergent Church circles this is not seen as a bad thing at all; it is the way many Emergent Church pastors preach, in fact. But when a pastor writes a book he ought to remember James' injunction about the higher responsibility borne by teachers in the Church and he ought to remember that ineffective shepherds are judged harshly in Scripture. Using one's megachurch platform to address a theological issue is not the place to work out issues best confined to sessions with one's spiritual director.
The Emergent Church is basically a series of youth groups that got out of hand. Some day, one can only hope its leaders grow up and take adult responsibility for protecting the sheep entrusted to them by God. After all, they don't ultimately answer to the blogosphere but to the Good Shepherd Himself.
I did see this interview of Rob Bell by Martin Bashir at MSNBC (see below). The interview is astonishing because it features an interviewer asking tough questions of a trendy liberal type instead of just lobbing the usual soft balls and sneering at conservative doctrine and conservative Christians. I thought is was outstanding journalism and MSNBC ought to be commended for rising above its usual liberal bias.
The interviewer, Martin Bashir, asks Bell to clarify if he is or is not a universalist. Bell refuses. It appears that the marketing strategy of the book is to claim to be (1) in the mainstream of Christianity and (2) pro-universalism in a vague manner. It seems to be "working" from a sales and marketing perspective and Bell stays right on script. The only problem is that he looks foolish, evasive and dishonest when confronted by an interviewer who really tries to get to the bottom of what he actually believes.
A partial transcript can be accessed here. Kevin DeYoung's 20 page review of Bell's book, which Bashir quotes in the interview, can be accessed here. Paul Edwards has a very interesting 30 minute interview with Martin Bashir about the whole incident, which can be heard here.
Some bloggers have accused Martin Bashir of being biased against Rob Bell just because he attends Tim Keller's Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. It figures; when you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger.
Bashir answers Edwards' question about this by asserting that the job of a journalist is to get at the truth on behalf of the audience and that his personal beliefs have nothing to do with that duty. Quite right. The issue that Rob Bell's supporters have to deal with is not whether Bashir was or was not of one opinion personally or the other. Suppose he was completely opposed to Rob Bell; the question still is why does Bell do so much squirming and equivocating instead of answering clearly and with calm conviction? Why is Bell so reluctant to answer a straight-forward question? In the interview, he looks much more like a politician than a pastor. In fact, he looks like Romney answering questions on health care at a Tea Party rally! The question is: why?
Bashir opines in the interview that Bell is using the medium of writing to work out his own anxieties, insecurities and unresolved issues from his own conservative upbringing. When Bashir asked Bell if this was true, Bell owned up to it rather than denying it. In Emergent Church circles this is not seen as a bad thing at all; it is the way many Emergent Church pastors preach, in fact. But when a pastor writes a book he ought to remember James' injunction about the higher responsibility borne by teachers in the Church and he ought to remember that ineffective shepherds are judged harshly in Scripture. Using one's megachurch platform to address a theological issue is not the place to work out issues best confined to sessions with one's spiritual director.
The Emergent Church is basically a series of youth groups that got out of hand. Some day, one can only hope its leaders grow up and take adult responsibility for protecting the sheep entrusted to them by God. After all, they don't ultimately answer to the blogosphere but to the Good Shepherd Himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
