The Questions Remain on Bell, Hell
The ongoing conversation generated by Rob Bell's Love Wins raises a number of important questions that we should consider. Let's consider two:
First, how do we think about our relationship to the history of the church?
One prominent figure in the discussion about the eternal destiny of humans has been Origen of Alexandria. The fifth ecumenical council condemned a number of his views as heretical, including his view that all humans would ultimately be reconciled to God. To be more precise, it is probably better to say that this council condemned what they believed were the implications of his views, as Origen had been dead for nearly three centuries. There was concern that his views would suggest that after the final judgment humans (as well as Satan and fallen angels) could have a post-mortem conversion and be saved after suffering for a while. There's no question that this condemnation is significant for indicating that early church fathers primarily held the view that after death there was a final judgment followed by an eternal state of existence apart from God for those who did not respond to God's offer of reconciliation in this life.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
What makes matters more complicated for Protestants and perhaps evangelical protestants in particular is the fact that they do not place a heavy emphasis on ancient confessions and creeds; they base their beliefs on what the interpret from the Biblical text, often apart from a significant engagement with the early church. Many evangelicals certainly have a desire to connect with what the early Christians taught, but this happens more by direct engagement with Scripture than by significant attention to ancient creeds and confessions. For sure, some evangelicals attend churches where often they recite the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed, but this does not mean that they have significant understanding of the work of a figure such as Athanasius, for example.
The point is not that Bible is not sufficient for arriving at belief, but that Biblical interpretation is not only a matter of the modern Bible reader and world of the Biblical text; we stand in a stream that has existed for two millennia, and there is a healthy way we can look to the history of interpretation and creedal statements as part of our heritage. This is not to put tradition on par with Scripture, but to direct our attention to the conversations about doctrine that have gone on for centuries so that when we arrive at questions about what the church has taught in the past, we are already in a knowledgeable stance and ready to discuss what has been taught, how it has developed, and how we can join that centuries old conversation today. This doesn't mean everyone needs to possess encyclopedic their knowledge of the past, but a commitment to at least a general knowledge of some of the prominent figures and their important contributions. This would make for a more constructive conversation, I believe.
A second question more directly addresses an important doctrinal issue: How do we think about God and divine revelation, especially in light of the way we are influenced by our current cultural context?
When we consider who God is as the one who is both loving and sovereign, completely holy and completely merciful, generous and just, what conclusion do we reach?
Online I saw someone asking the question "does God get what He wants?" in light the language in 2 Peter 3:9 that tells us that God desires that none perish and all come to repentance. A follow up question was "if God desires that all be saved, then how do we genuinely arrive at a concept of eternal punishment?" This line of questioning is similar to one that asks how God can be considered truly loving if people don't get another chance to reconcile with Him after death.
Before dismissing these questions, it is important to face them squarely and to give proper care in providing an answer, all the while considering how we can be faithful and true to God as revealed in divine revelation. I would approach the first question by putting the Biblical text into proper context, and ask whether the point of the text is that God's desire and intent is to reconcile all humans to himself in the end. The answer seems to be that the text emphasizes God's great patience with humans, and that there will be those who remain unreconciled at the end- both chapter 2 (especially v.4-10) and the whole context of chapter 3 speak of judgment without suggesting that it includes a period of rehabilitation followed by a divine parole at some point. To ask "does God get what He wants" while implying that He will ultimately save everyone also indicates a circumstance where the desire is for God to be completely sovereign in a way that eliminates the legitimate human responsibility presented in the Bible.
I think at times all of us want God to be completely sovereign when we want Him to correspond to our desires or conception of reality, and we want complete freedom or carte blanche mercy when we want to do our own thing with no reference to God's commands – in either situation we have a lingering temptation to stack the deck in our favor in changing circumstances. Scripture reveals divine sovereignty but neither optimistic nor fatalistic determinism. We will all answer for the stewardship of our lives.
What of the concern about God's mercy after death, the second chance for those who did not in this life respond to God for any number of reasons (from outright rejection of the Gospel to those never exposed to the Gospel)?
First it is important to recognize that God is completely just, and He determines the criteria for justice, not us. Our modern sense of fairness certainly prompts us to desire that the option of universal reconciliation is a real one. As I read the Biblical text, it seems more speculative to reach such a conclusion in light of the many judgment texts that point to a final sentence.
Second, my sense is that most people sincerely wish that hell would be an empty place because most of us would not wish such a fate on anyone. That said, our wishes neither determine what the Biblical text teaches nor how God will sort this out in the end. Let's face it: what we are taught is that God will be revealed in all the divine splendor at the end, and when this occurs none of us will be thinking that God is monstrous because He judges sin and because hell has permanent residents. We will see that God is more loving and more just than we can possibly imagine now.
But we are not yet privy to this direct experience of God, and our vision remains dim, so we read the Bible, try our best to interpret it faithfully, and face the reality of our limitations (not always cheerfully). Scripture tells us what we need to know, but does not tell us everything, and the space between leaves us longing for the most precise answer, the one we won't have on this side. Meanwhile, I and many others trust in God's love and justice, lament that some will be lost in the end, and await God's clearest revelation that will answer all our questions and address our deepest concerns and fears.
