Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins' has proved controversial. The accusation is that Bell suggests that everybody will be saved, and it does not really matter whether you make a commitment to Christ or not. So, is this fair? Well, it is clear that Bell is a universalist - believing that Christ died for all and all will be saved by and through him. But the second part of the accusation, that a commitment to Christ is not important, is harder, although perhaps not impossible, to sustain.
Bell is clear that a commitment to Christ really matters, really transforms lives. But is it essential to eternal life, essential to entry into heaven? Well, Bell suggests that framing the issue as 'who's in' and 'who's out' is unhelpful and unbiblical. He also raises important problems for those that believe that failure to accept Christ in this life will result in eternal damnation. What about good, decent people who have been brought up in a non-Christian culture and have lived a godly life? What about a teenager who dies while in a temporary bout of rebellion? Bell suggests that a dogmatic interpretation in such circumstances is not compatible will the Gospel message of a loving God, and I think I agree with him.
In fact, throughout the book I found myself agreeing with Bell's general thrust - that God is love, that God cannot not love, that God is all powerful and will not give up on any soul. But of course this inevitably leads to the question - do our choices in this life matter?
On this point, Bell, for me, briefly crosses a line. He quotes Jesus: 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father accept through me.' And then he writes, 'What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him.' (Italics mine.) Now, this suggestion that those being saved may not even know that it is Jesus who saves them, creates a serious problem. If Bell is suggesting this in the sense of the 'unknown god' of Acts 17, where Paul tells his Greek audience that their unknown god is in fact the only true God - Jesus - then I can go with him.
But, for me, a decision to accept the gift offered by Jesus is essential because without it a massive free-will problem arises. It goes like this. If Jesus can save without the saved person even knowing, then this is happening against their free will, without their active decision. If God is prepared to do overrule our free will, then why does he allow suffering to occur? Why does he not intervene to stop all the suffering in the world? Free will - our freedom to choose or reject God - is central to the Christian faith. It cannot be optional.
In the further reading section of the book Bell suggests C.S. Lewis's 'The Great Divorce' as the book to read to understand heaven and hell, and I strongly agree with this. Although it is obviously allegorical, there is no doubt that Lewis believes that there will be opportunity to choose Christ after death. In fact, everybody in hell will be there of their own free will, actively choosing the darkness. God will reject no-one. However, Bell suggests - and I my hope is that he is right - that eventually every soul will accept the free gift offered by Christ and be saved. In the end, 'Love Wins'.
No comments:
Post a Comment