Love Wins by Rob Bell

Popular Grand Rapids, Michigan pastor Rob Bell's bestseller Love Wins has reportedly stirred up loads of controversy among conservative evangelicals, even before its release last year. And it's not hard to see why, given the book's premise.

And his opening chapter (and in the video released on Youtube beofore the release of said book),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODUvw2McL8g

Bell presents to his audience the following scenario. During a church art show, one of the participants had including a quote for Mahatma Gandhi. And someone else had tacked on a note reading: Reality check: he's in hell.

"Gandhi's in hell?" Bell asks his audience, "Are we sure? Do we know this?" (page 1) He follows this up with a number of other thought-provoking and difficult questions, such as that of the self-professed atheist who dies as a teenager. To the response that "There's no hope then," Bell responds pointedly "No hope? Is that the Christian message?" (Page 3). And then there's that matter of the missionary getting a flat tire on the way to the local village. If someone dies there, is he/she forever lost?

Too many Christians would answer "yes," to that last question, I'm afraid. Why? As I've argued elsewhere the core reason for this is not really scriptural, but rather concerned with the survival of Christanity as a faith. But the reason Bell uses this example is becuase he knows that, according to our core morality (which most beleivers, evangelicals included, I'd guess, would agree is given to us by God), it would be nonsensical for God to judge someone according to standards of which s/he is simply ignorant, of no fault of his or her own. We understand this. It flies in the sense of our understanding of morality that God would not.

The example of Gandhi in hell raises an even more provocotive question. Why would a person believe that this is so? Didn't Gandhi live an exemplary life compared to most of us, including the majority of professing beleivers? The almost inevitable answer to that will run something like this: good works are not what counts. You could live the best possible life, and still not make it into heaven if you lacked the required faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, whoever wrote that is necessarily divorcing faith from works. But the book of James teaches that faith without works is dead (not a saving faith), and many places in the New Testement teaches that we will judged according to our works. The question that follows from this should be, therefore: If one is NOT a professing Christian, and one nonetheless leads a morally exemplary life, is one, therefore, one of His followers after all? I am assuming here, of course, that one is genuine, and not self-serving, in his dedication to works, as Gandhi certainly appeared to have been. One might ask if something is even possible without a conscious decison to follow Christ; I would respond that such is certainly possible if one happens at least to be seeking truth.

If one accepts the general postion regarding salvation held by evangelicals, however, did, in fact, Gandhi have enough faith to avoid the inferno? He certainly was aware of Christ and Christianity, so one must not count him among the ignorant pagans, whatever one's opinion regarding their eternal destiny might be. Gandhi is quoted as saying,"...I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew." So was this enough?

Indeed, merely inquiring if it was "enough" suggests, as does the "tire" scenario, that God allows people into heaven on the basis of technicalities, which, of course, have nothing to do with the condition of one's heart, which should be the only real criteria. But most evangelicals would disagree about Gandhi, becuase the above statement by him suggests Pluralism. And for ther Christian faith to be the Truth, none other can be on par with it. This is the real evangelical gripe against Gandhi.



And it's the same with Rob Bell. I actually found his book to be confusing in places. At times he sounds like a universalist, yet never stakes a firm position. His argument that salvation is NOT primarily about getting "how to get to heaven" (in spite of what we're commonly taught) is, I think, a point well taken. Most of us have heard that the salvation promised by Jesus Christ is all about how to get to heaven when we die. But Bell makes it clear, from his discussion of Jesus and the young rich man, that Jesus meant much more than this. In other words, our admission into the Kingdom of Heaven does NOT begin after we take our final breath in this world, but right here, right now, in accepting Him into our hearts, and through our obdedience to His teachings.

Is Bell a universalist, as his critics charge? The answer might be both "yes" and "no." He does appear to accept hell as a reality, but his general beleif seems to be that hell is remedial and corrective rather than eternal. He might, therefore, be best described as a beleiver in univeral reconciliation. Hell in the world beyond this is a reality, but we are not forever lost. If God truly wants everyone to come to Him, and he is truely all powerful, then eventually he will save everyone in the end.

Much to the chagrin of evangelicals, I might add.

There have been a number of books written, mostly by Bell's evangelical critics, in attempt to counter him. One of such book, which I've read, is God Wins by Mark Galli. Gallie argues that that hell is eternal, but the fate of certain individuals, such as ignorant pagans, is simply a mystery, but we should jut trust God that everything He does will be just. One thing I've noticed ironic about the title of this particular book is that if God des win, doesn't love win also? For is not God also love?

The following quotes form Bell's book show the God often falsely represented by evangelicals:

"A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better,” Bell writes.

“It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus.

“This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’s message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear."

Bell is right on target with these astute abservations. It is telling that many of Bell's critics (not Galli) have responded with anger. Most infamous was a tweet by John Piper, Baptist Pastor, and author of the recent book Jesus: the Only Way to God, who wrote "Rob Bell is history."

I strongly suspect, however, that Rob Bell represents the future of Christianity.

What is The Fate of Pagans?

I was reading the other day a book by the author David Platt called Radical. I thought the book was so good I bought it--but I ended up being disturbed and shaken by it. Most of the book I am in much agreement with. He decries the poor state that much of modern Christianity is in nowadays. Especially how most preaching puts the self smack in the center of things. Most popular spirtual books constantly appeal to the self. What can Christ do for YOU. How can God get YOUR life in order. But Platt reminds readers that true Christianity is about denying the self and sacrificing one's worldly possessions for the sake of the Lord. He tell us that Christ's teachings about denying the world, disowning even one's family for Him were indeed very radical.

And it made me wonder too: would I be strong enough to deny anything, if the Lord were to require it?


I was actually cheering him on throughout most of the book. Until I got to the chapter on the unsaved. Platt basically argues with an equal egree of passion, that those who have never heard of Christ are necessarily damned. A common beleif, but also an obviously controversial one. Platt beleives those who have never heard the
gospel are subject to a different sort of accountability than those who have and willingly rejected Christ. But they are denied Heaven nonetheless. To support his postion he gives the example of an innocent tribal bushman who dies without knowledge of Christ. Would he go to heaven? Platt answers "Yes," then turns that answer upon itself. The key word here is "innocent." The innocent man, according to Platt, does not exist. In other words, we're talking about the whole idea that God demands absolute perfection, which, of course, is impossible to live up to, and the only answer is Christ.


To show that Heaven as a default destination for the pagan will not work, Platt puts his readers in the position of a missionary who tells a potential convert who previously has not heard of Christ, that before, he had an automatic ticket to heaven, but now that he's heard, he might go to hell! This last is a straw-man argument. I am not, and I doubt others are, suggesting that a person who has never heard that actual facts of Christ's life, death and resurection is going to heaven by default. Imagine: would King Montezuma of the ancient Aztecs go to heaven, after they sarificed hundreds upon hundreds of people to a pagan deity? What about Caligula, not to mention the other corrupt Romans who were into all manner of cruelty?




The inevitable reponse from a lot of Christians can almost be heard already. The moment you bring that up, the common response is, in general, that Christianity has nothing to do with behavior and everything to do with beleif. The whole "saved by grace, not works" thing. If you're an OSAS beleiver, then IF King Montezuma or Caligula had heard the right facts, and DID have a fleeting moment of genuine faith, then they both would be in heaven, and niether would even have had to repent! These two examples, the Aztecs and the Romans, show very clearly cultures dominated by sin-nature and in need of redemption by Christ. When it comes to those who have never heard, there is more of concern to missionaries -then promoting Christianity as a get-out-of-hell-free ticket. Which, by itself, will only appeal to self-interest.


But that's really the point, as far as Platt is concerned. What is really at stake when it comes to the position of Inclusionism (the belief that some may be saved apart from hearing the actual facts about Christ), is the fear factor. In other words, what really worries Platt and others like him is not so much that souls of the pagan will be otherwise lost, but the future of Christianity and Christian
culture in this life. If we were to tell a potential convert, for example, that he really should accept Christ, but he still can get to heaven if he doesn't, is he still apt to convert? Humans by nature, are conservative. And let's face it, the world is becoming increasingly secularized. The fear that one's culture is imperiled is understandable. However, Christ did not call his followers to be cultural warriors, and it is the fear of cultural anhililation that is, I beleive, behind the renewed insistence that those who have not heard are necessarily lost.


I have long taken the position of C. S. Lewis on this on. Lewis was an inclusionist, who took the position that virtuous pagan who ernerstly sought truth would make it to heaven, even if circumstances determined that he lacked the correct facts. In other words, it is the condition of one's that determines salvation, not access to the facts. The Word of God is written on each of our hearts as well as in the Bible.

The Problem With Eternal Security

Today, I'm going to talk about the Calvinist doctrine of Eternal Security, also known as Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), or Perserverence of the Saints. To define this concept briefly, Eternal Security means that if one sincerely accepts Christ at one point in thier lives, then it doesn't matter if they commit any degree or qulaity of sin, or even if they totally renounce God. According to OSAS, as commonly understood, they will still end up in heaven.

Let me first reiterate that one reason I was an agnostic for many years is because of the fact that I was told many lies about God, often by sincere and beleving Christians. I became immersed in atheist literature for a while. I honestly beleived that what Sam Harris had to say in The End of Faith was correct. Christians are rightly concerned with the rise of New Atheism today. But all to often their arguments against Harris, Dawkins, et al. misfire terribly.

Consider the oft-repeated arguement from morality. This holds that since atheism excludes God, there can be no objective basis for morality. It just becomes a matter of opinion. Indeed, atheists cannot measure morality as they can say, the age of the earth or break ethics down into quarks and nuetrons as they can with subatomic particles. Most atheists are strict materialists who believe that if a thing cannot be measured ina laboratory, that is made subject to scientific inquiry and investigation, then it must not exist. What, then, are morals other than cultural artifacts? How can the ethics of one cultural possibly be superior to another since this asseration cannot be tested scientifically? Our leading atheists realize, however, that true moral relativism refutes itself. Sam Harris asserts that morality is merely a question of "happiness vs. suffering." The degree and quality of happiness and/or suffering, is, however, often not easy to determine, and the athiest often runs into a moral quagmire while attempting to do so. A prime example of this would Peter Singer's proposal regarding hemophiliac infants. While happiness and suffering are often important components of morality, this is not always the case. Consider the scenario of a population of humans plugged into a virtual reality program. Imagine that they may experience any manner of pleasure they desire with no repercussions whatever. Their experience is one of utter bliss, yet remain wholly ignorant regarding the reality of their situation. Given the importance most of us hold for Truth, it really morally defensible to keep them in that state? Few would answer that it is.

I beleive that a moral compass should, and usually does, govern human behavior, and this is far more reliable than the approach of attempting to mdetermine the quantity of "happiness" vs. that of "suffering." Such a "rationalist" approach simply won't work when it comes to the thorny problem of morals. It is true that there are times when it is our human prejudices and fears (often the fear of change) which governs our actions, when we suppose it is our moral compass, and here we must be on guard. I rather beleive this to be the case when it comes to certain cases of biotech phobia. This is where our rationality must be used. Is our position on a certain issue liable to reduce human suffering and promote human welfare, not merely in theory but in actuality? I believe that "human welfare" is a much better term than than "happiness."

Back to the moral compass, though. Since we can't determine if a moral compass objectively exists, we must rely on--guess what?--faith. We must take the existence of objective morals as a faith article because there is no other way to do it. There is, however, a huge problem with the "argument from morality," as it is often called. This atheist blog http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/09/19/francis-collins-accomplished-scientist-anti-atheist-bigot.htm offers the following quote by Francis Collins:

18:20: "This is a really important point here: If you want to accept the argument that this knowledge of good and evil, this moral law, is a pure evolutionary artifact, that it is basically an illusion — that there is no good and evil — then why do the atheists insist that we should get over religion and try to be good to each other? Who cares about being good? If they're right, we should all shrug off the whole idea and be just as darn selfish as we possibly can because there is no driving force behind this. We've all been hoodwinked by evolution into thinking that we're supposed to be good and we should rebel against this."

Now idea that Collins is an "anti-atheist bigot" is rediculous. Collins is a renowned scientist credited with his part in mapping the human genome. The athiests can't stand him because they the hate the idea that such a brilliant scientist, of all people, can also be a man of faith. Not surprisingly, Collins often takes it from both sides, even though his accomplishments far outwiegh those of any of his opponents, whether secular or religious. What he is saying here is NOT that atheists have no morals, but that their worldview is inconsistent with beleif in objective morality.

The fact is that all ideologcal athiests definitely have morals, and very strong ones at that, no matter how ideologically inconsistent they might be. If they did not, if they were believers in true moral relativism, they would not have written any of their best-selling books. They would not care about the supposed evils of religion, because true "evil" would be a fiction. they would believe in it no more than they believe in God. They wouldn't care a fig about racism, women's rights, homophobia, intolerance or equality. For the true moral relativist, such things would be not of the slightest moral import. A TRUE moral relativist would simply live it up, for the short time he had on earth, and not bother trying to make the world a better place.

But here is what's shocking. There are may people today who truely do subscribe to a worldview that really does allow for all manner of vice and immorality. What's worse is that they believe that there are no bounds to immoral behavior, and that literally NO act of depravity is too severe for condemnation. They beleive in little reason to behave morally, altruistcally, or to treat other human beings decently.

Social Darwinists? Eugenisits? Islamic Fundementalists? Worshipers of Moloch? Witches and Satanic cultists? What about Neo-Pagans and Druids?
Consider the following comments, gleaned from this site http://www.defendingthegospel.org/articles/article42.html:

"Simply defined, carnality is a spiritual state in which a born-again Christian knowingly, willingly, intentionally and persistently lives to please and serve self rather than Jesus Christ."

“Committed Christians may fall into sin, but a carnal Christian bathes in it. He has the mindset, motivation and methodology of sin."

The speaker here is no atheist or neo-Darwinst, but Dr. Anthony "Tony" Evans, a popular Christian apologist and a beleiver in the docrine of eternal security. He fully believes that such are "carnal" Christian will be in heaven. But to bad for any good percent who lived at decent life, contributed to human welfare, but just didn't happen to get "saved" somewhere along the way.

Or how about these, by Dr. Erwin Lutzer, another noted apologist:

histians can be deceived and live like the ‘sons of disobedience'...struggle with sexual addictions, or Christians who are greedy and idolatrous. We’ve all known Christians who live with these sins...Christians can do evil deeds and be caught in terrible sins. Some die in such a spiritual condition...If Paul meant that those who practice such vices will not enter the kingdom, our own assurance of final salvation would be in constant jeopardy. -Erwin W. Lutzer, Your Eternal Reward

"I am convinced that those who have trusted Christ are in Heaven today even if they died with the sin of murder on their conscience. -Erwin Lutzer, How You Can Be Sure That You Will Spend Eternity With God"

This is where a must add that a very many Christians do beleive in Eternal Security, and there are few, that I imagine, actually lead such grossly immoral lives. I do not even imagine that Dr. Lutzer and Dr. Evans do--but they are promoting the idea "carnal Christianity" is possible--all with the supposed endorsement of God himself! There is a common, and for the most part true, assumption, that once a person accepts Christ, they will be able walk away from sin. In fact, Darin Hufford, author of The Misunderstood God (a book I greatly appreciate, BTW) and who promotes a God is Love theology, states bluntly that Eternal Security DOES, in fact give us license to sin! But once that is done we will walk away from sin. If we experience the Love God has for us, will will no longer experience worldly desire. On the surface I agree with him. However, what about those who claim to have accepted Christ, and continue down a path of gross immorality? One common response from Eternal Security defenders is that such sinners were never saved to begin with. Perhaps. But if NO person who willingly and habitually sins will enter heaven (as the Bible clearly teaches), then ALL "carnal Christians" were indeed never saved. If Hufford's take on Eternal Security merely refers to free will, that we are not forced into obendience, then I agree. The acid test is: does he believe that even the most heinous individuals will be in heaven, or doesn't he? Evans, Lutzer, and many others do, and preach as much in their sermons and books.
I wonder.
Here is a site with an interesting story by an atheist:

http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2009/12/christian-vs-atheist-parenting.html

The comment I found particularly moving was the one following:

"At that point, for a few moments I just stood there shaking my head. I’ve seen too many times the results of a good Christian upbringing. You see these ignorant people beating their children, while shopping in stores. Their children grow up believing they can do anything they want; as long as they repent their sins to Jesus. The prisons are bursting at the seams with Christians."

Hmmm. Wonder why? Notice that the author, an athiest, never questions why he thinks his own children have grown up moral and decent, and his friend's entire family seems consumed by vice and squalor. Prison? Drugs? HIV? What's really going on here? Naturally, the assumption he's making is that it must have something to do with religion per se, about beleiving in "irrationality."

But is it?

He'll never likely concede Christianity might possibly be true, so he won't bother delving deeper into the problem. If he bothered he just might find these are the "carnal Christians" Dr. Evans and Dr. Lutzer beleive will be enjoying the fruits of everlasting bliss, while freethinkers who have lived a good life while be tormented for eternity.

Now, reader, ask yourself. What sort of God, exactly, do Evans and Lutzer subscribe to? The answer is: not a moral one.

My point is that the real villain here, the one responsible for casting Christians in a bad light, fueling the fires of ideological atheism, is not Christianity. Eternal Security, however might well be the real culprit.

It is true, some defenders of Eternal Security may point out that may lose thier rewards in heaven, even though they are saved. Thus the God they beleive in is therefore not entirely morally indifferent. However, this morality is a marginal one to say the least. It is unlikely, that fear of losing these (intangible seeming) rewards in heaven is likely to dissuade many form a sinful life in the here and now, if they so choose. As said before, I'm not saying that simply believing in this doctrine will result in a ammoral or immoral lifestyle. On the other hand, it is certainly not impossible, as an example on the following page shows, of a man the suthor knew who beleived anything he chose to do was God's will:

http://www.raptureme.com/rap43.html

There are two reasons I beleive people may wish to beleive in Eternal Security. One is simply the assurence that one is saved. That's perfectly understandable. I do NOT beleive that a "conditional" security means a single sinful act will cause one to lose one's salvation. How about repeated acts? They won't cause God to abandon one. But the thing is that sin deadens the heart to God, and therefore cause one to put oneself before others. I do not know exactly where the "cut off" point would be, but it would be when one was living one was living mostly or entirely for oneself, even if one still claimed to have faith.

The other reason for wishing to beleive in Eternal Security may in fact be a desire to sin without fear of losing one's salvation. Since were's all Fallen humans, why should this not be a core motive?