The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"The Prodigal Gospel of Rob Bell" (aka JRP's long review)

Featured Writers Jason Pratt
#81

WELL WHAT’S HIS OTHER PROBLEM!?–DOES IT MAKE EVEN SLIGHTLY MORE SENSE?!?

The bridge is going somewhere.

…OKAY, THIS IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE BELL IS NEUROTIC.

It does make slightly more sense, slightly. What he wants to complain about, and there’s some validity to his complaint (which I’ll be talking more about later), is that we tend to picture heaven and hell happening somewhere else. Thus his (other) complaint with the picture: it’s happening somewhere else. Not here.

As far as Rob’s concerned, though, that’s the “fundamental story” being told by the painting. Not salvation through Jesus (and the cross of Jesus), not Christ’s salvation being strong and safe and clear, not heaven’s gates being open to all who come by Christ, not Christ being the only Way–not even (so far as the painting indicates, probably by accident) hell being left empty and abandoned thanks to the cross of Christ…!

WAIT–ISN’T HE COMPLAINING FOR MOST OF THE BOOK ABOUT CHRISTIANS NOT TEACHING AT LEAST POST-MORTEM SALVATION (IF NOT UNIVERSAL SALVATION)??!

Aye, verily.

AND YET HE’S COMPLAINING HERE ABOUT THIS PICTURE OF SALVATION HAPPENING SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN HERE!?

Aye, verily.

SO HE’S COMPLAINING ABOUT POST-MORTEM SALVATION!!–SALVATION HAPPENING AFTER DEATH, NOT HERE IN THIS WORLD!!!

He isn’t thinking that clearly, or that far ahead. Otherwise he would have seen that borrowing this picture is actually worse than useless for the point he wants to make.

#82

BUT MAYBE HE’S ONLY TRYING TO REACH A POPULAR AND UNEDUCATED AUDIENCE AND SO HE DOESN’T THINK HE HAS TO THINK THAT CLEARLY OR THAT FAR AHEAD ABOUT WHAT HE’S TRYING TO TEACH THEM TO ACCEPT WHILE CRITIQUING OTHER PEOPLE… ABOUT… OH NEVER MIND.

Yeah, that explanation doesn’t hold up as an excuse when the implications are spelled out. Also, successful popular teachers, when they’re good popular teachers, bring out hidden implications in a colorful way that the general uneducated population might have missed, helping them to see and understand the issues better.

Rob can be quite good at that sometimes. Even brilliant sometimes. Here? Not so much.

SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THIS PICTURE SCARING HIM WITH ITS COLORS WHEN HE WAS A CHILD, AND THIS IS HOW HE GETS HIS REVENGE ON IT!?

To be fair, I’m looking at the thing in black and white. It might look more impressive-ish in color. But as far as his application of this painting goes, yep. He wanted an excuse to vent because it creeped him out as a kid, and now by God that painting will get what’s coming to it!!1!

It’s hard to avoid this conclusion, considering not only the way he himself talks about it, but also considering that there are dozens of paintings that would have made his two points (such as they are) much better. Except of course, those paintings weren’t hanging on his Grandma’s wall.

#83

THIS IS NOT THE PART OF THE CHAPTER YOU SAY GETS BETTER, WE TRUST?!

Ha ha ha! No.

THANK HEAVEN! BECAUSE HIS APPLICATION OF THAT PAINTING AMOUNTS TO THE WORST KIND OF LITERAL-IMAGE-MONGERING AT BEST!

Yeahhhh… um… that continues for a while I’m afraid.

HE CONTINUES MAKING FUN OF IMAGERY OF HEAVEN AS THOUGH IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN SUPER-LITERALLY?

Oh yes.

BUT SURELY HE KNOWS IT ISN’T SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN THAT SUPER-LITERALLY!

Oh yes. But he doesn’t bother to mention that Arm and Calv teachers and scholars don’t take that imagery super-literally either, and try to instruct people otherwise themselves. The closest he comes is a jibe about a dull pastor (and admittedly I’ve heard some clueless ones go this route) trying to tell people heaven is unlike anything we can comprehend and then using the image of “a church service that goes on forever” to try to help people comprehend it anyway.

WELL ADMITTEDLY THAT TYPE OF TEACHER IS A NIT!

Also admittedly, there are (or were) not a few people whose best ideas of a holy life involve worshiping in church. More to the point, it’s a scriptural image–mostly from the Old Testament, but not to be disrespected on that account!

Rob does make a good point in passing that two people might be crying at a church service, thinking about heaven, for two very different reasons: one because she expects to be reunited with the people she loves, and the other because she expects most of the people she loves to be hopelessly lost (and probably suffering endless torments). And indeed that second woman would be “troubled and confused” if she was told that she’ll be having so much fun (or joy rather, but Rob represents it merely as “fun”) worshiping God that the ongoing death and destruction of the other people she loves won’t matter to her: because they do matter to her now!

BUT ARMS AND CALVS HAVE VARIOUS REASONS TO EXPECT THAT TO BE TRUE!

Yes, and those reasons ought to be looked at. But Rob doesn’t bother to.

SOUNDS LIKE THIS WHOLE FIRST PART OF CHAPTER 3 IS ENTIRELY AN EMOTIONAL SETUP AND APPEAL FROM BEGINNING TO END.

Yep!–not only for sake of assuaging Rob’s own emotions, but for trying to introduce an important topic as if Arms and Calvs never bother to discuss it.

WHICH MEANS HE’S STILL CHEATING!

Pretty much. While sacrificing an amazing opportunity to make positive use of something that frightened him as a child, reducing it instead to being only a puerile illustration of points he could have used much better artistic examples for.

#84

But it does get better.

YOU KEEP SAYING THAT, Y’KNOW…

Well, leaving off his rather unfair way of getting to the topic, his main points for this chapter are still pretty good. And numerous, too:

1.) Heaven isn’t only a post-mortem goal to attain to; the kingdom of God is something we ought to be also bringing about in this age right now.

SOUNDS SUSPICIOUSLY UTOPIAN!

No, he isn’t only concerned about social justice in this life. (Much less some kind of theocracy!) But he is concerned about social justice in this life, too, and wants to make sure people aren’t ignoring or discounting any struggle for that in this life, focusing on heaven to come instead.

BUT ARMS AND CALVS BOTH HAVE A RICH HISTORY OF STRIVING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THIS LIFE, TOO!

Yeaaaaahhhhh he kind of just ignores that.

NOT SURPRISINGLY. BECAUSE IT WOULD BLOW HIS THESIS. HE WOULD LOOK LESS LIKE HE’S OFFERING SOMETHING, BE IT TRUTH OR UTILITY OR WHATEVER, THEY DON’T AND/OR CAN’T!

To be fair, Arms and Calvs (Protestant and otherwise) do also have a bit of a history of ignoring–

BUT THEY THEMSELVES CRITIQUE THEMSELVES (AS WELL AS EACH OTHER) ON THAT OCCASIONAL FAILURE!!

I know. I’m not saying he’s right to pretend otherwise. But he is right about the importance of extending ‘heaven’ into this life, as Arms and Calvs both can principly agree, too! And this has some important connections to his other points. Which in turn touch on some issues non-universalists dispute universalists (and each other) about.

SUCH AS?

#85

2.) Eternal life, or ‘eonian life’ to transliterate it a bit more literally, is something we Christians can and should be participating in here and now. It isn’t (only) something for us after we’ve died and ‘gone to heaven’.

OKAY, NO PROBLEM, ARMS AND CALVS BOTH OFTEN (OR AT LEAST SOMETIMES) AFFIRM AND TALK ABOUT THAT, TOO. NOT LEAST BECAUSE THERE’S DIRECT SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY FOR IT!–MOST OFTEN FROM THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.

If I told you he neglects to mention Arms and Calvs both often (or at least sometimes) affirm and talk about this, too, would you have a heart-attack from not-surprise?

NO! YES! NO… …MAYBE. WHAT?!

Par for the course for him there (or way over par, to be more accurate to the analogy. For a golfer that’s bad.) But still a good point that some of his readers could need reminding about.

BIG DEAL. AN ARM OR CALV COULD GET THAT FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T PROMOTE POST-MORTEM SALVATION, MUCH LESS UNIVERSAL SALVATION, TOO!

How often would they get this next point, however?

3.) Christians who have eonian life in us still die.

…UH. WELL YEAH. BE… BECAUSE…

Because:

4.) Eonian (i.e. “eternal”) life isn’t primarily about living continuously forever. It’s a qualitative statement first and foremost, not a quantitative one.

NOW WAIT A MINUTE…!

Waiting. :slight_smile:

#86

HE CAN’T MAKE THAT CRITICISM, UNLESS HE’S TRYING TO DENY THAT ETERNAL LIFE DOESN’T GO ON FOREVER AFTER WE DIE!

Sure he can. Don’t other people who affirm that “eonian life” goes on forever after Christians die, still affirm Christians die despite having “eonian life” now?

YE–EAH… BUT…

Don’t those same people talk about the damned continuing to live in some fashion forever? (Unless they’re annihilationists?–and even then don’t most annihilationists acknowledge that the wicked are resurrected first to ‘eonian judgment’ or ‘eonian punishment’ or whatever, thus first to life and then annihilation? But annihilationists do get this point better.)

YES!–BUT THAT ISN’T…

That–merely living forever–isn’t eonian life. Or eonian punishment for that matter. Is it?

NO…

No. Admittedly, Rob isn’t quite as good at making this point as he could be–this particular angle of illustrating point 4 is barely in the text at all (Rob prefers to make that point more from other angles, as I’ll mention later). But it’s still in there and worth mentioning. Living forever isn’t the same thing as having eonian life, or even having eonian life forever. There aren’t many theologies, trinitarian or otherwise (but especially trinitarian ones), which deny Jesus Christ of all people didn’t have eonian life, and even eonian life forever. Jesus even is the Resurrection and the Life! But Jesus still died. (There are of course a few theologies which try to deny Jesus really died; they’re called docetisms, and are regarded as seriously heretical by everyone else, especially the orthodox-trinitarian groups.)

This is why counter-critiques (including against Rob) pointing to the necessity of some sort of contrasting parallelism between ‘eonian life’ and ‘eonian crisis’ (or variations thereof) are simply missing the point. People who have eonian life now, in this age, still die and then go on living in the resurrection to come. People who don’t have eonian life now, in this age, die but still go on living in the resurrection to come.

BUT THEY AREN’T LIVING WITH EONIAN LIFE!!

That’s worth pointing out, too, but the debate then shifts to whether they ever receive eonian life later (or whether God is still even trying to give it to them). A proponent of hopelessly never-ending torment cannot logically shift back to trying to press a case-clenching meaning on the adjective ‘eonian’ (and related prepositional phrases like ‘into the eon’) being necessarily and primarily about the object of ‘eonian’ (or the preposition) continuing to happen never-endingly.

(I’m… pretty sure the grammar in that sentence added up… :wink: )

#87

This is naturally related to another point Rob makes in this chapter.

5.) ‘Eonian’ does not always refer to something that continues never-endingly. It can mean that, but sometimes it’s only a poetic way of saying ‘a long but finite time’ or even ‘a time that felt like a long time, longer than it actually was’.

BUT THAT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY CONTEXT!

Certainly! Which is to say that the ground of debate has to shift to contextual discussion. But a lot of weight is thrown on the term itself as evidence, by non-universalists, for non-universalism being scripturally testified as true. Rob, even if not quite as well as some other authors in past centuries (or today for that matter), points out that this weight is falsely sold to the people in the pew.

NOT QUITE AS WELL AS HE MIGHT HAVE?

ummmmm… yeah, he could do better. His actual discussion of the term, while covering some portions with good merit, is also sometimes rather confused. Sometimes worse than confused.

#88

EXAMPLES?

To give a minor example, Rob somehow ends up with the term “eonian life” meaning “the age to come”.

SURELY HE MEANS “LIFE OF THE AGE TO COME”?

That, too. But in his exuberance he loses track, the result being he ends up implying that Jesus said (maybe in the original Aramaic??), “No one who has left (these things) for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come ‘the age to come’.”

Which makes no sense even in Hebrew, much less Greek. (Though admittedly it might count as a rabbinic pun… I guess…)

HE ACTUALLY SAYS THAT!??

No, if he had bothered to write it out with his meaning substituted in there, he would have realized he had gone a bit too far. And I don’t think he was trying to cheat against his opponents here (exactly); there isn’t any evidence of it. I think he just got carried away and didn’t quite pay attention enough.

But I could see an opponent jumping up and down on this and trying to reduce Rob’s whole discussion on the term to this ridiculousness. So I thought I should mention it.

Come to think of it, I suppose I could defend his usage even there by interpreting it as “and in the age to come {they will receive} ‘the age to come’ {as well as all these other things in this age}”, since after all those bracketed portions are contextually implied in the statement anyway. Rob doesn’t make that defense himself, and I’m doubtful from his composition that he was thinking that far ahead, but maybe I shouldn’t rag on it too much, since it does work after all.

Still, his other discussions of ‘eon’ and its cognates in the New Testament are sometimes better. (There are two portions of that in this chapter, one briefer and earlier, one larger and later.)

One of his applied meanings later in the chapter is something I hadn’t thought of myself–it’s what I was referring to in the title of this part of the review (while poking fun at myself for writing long review parts. :wink: )

“Another meaning of aion is a bit more complex and nuanced, because it refers to a particular intensity of experience that transcends time.” (Rob’s emphasis.) “We even say, ‘It felt like it was taking forever.’ Now when we use the word ‘forever’ in this way… what we are referring to is the intensity of feeling in that moment.”

As interesting as this is, though, he never gives Biblical examples for the usage; and worse, he badly overreaches in his application of it, too.

#89

Rob isn’t satisfied to try to show how ‘eonian’ can be used this way (which I remind the reader he never does in Biblical reference anyway.) No, he has to put the topic into a denial that just isn’t true, and which his opponents will rightly hop up and down on vigorously.

So instead of saying that eonian could mean forever in the way we’re thinking but (perhaps rightly enough) could also mean ‘intensity of experience’ instead (an intensity that warps our perceptions of time); or (certainly rightly enough) that eonian could also mean “transcending time, belonging to another realm altogether”; Rob says aion (meaning aionian, the adjective version, since the other only means ‘age’) “is an altogether different word from ‘forever.’”

And then he shows what he means by an altogether different word:

“Let me be clear: heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time, like days and years, marching endlessly into the future. That’s not a category or concept we find in the Bible.” (My emphases.)

BULL-BLEEP. PURE AND TOTAL BULL-BLEEP. (OUR EMPHASES.)

I know. When he tries to put it that way, he not only instantly sets himself up to be refuted by obvious counter-examples, he instantly contradicts himself and his own stressed affirmations elsewhere–even nearby in this chapter.

DOES HE REALLY MEAN GOD DOES NOT CONTINUE IN OUR FUTURE FOREVER!!?

Of course he doesn’t. (And he does remember that ‘heaven’ is sometimes a way of talking about God euphemistically in scriptures, because he himself reminds the reader of this on the next freaking page!) But his stupidly overreaching way of putting this point, if actually applied the way he insists on, ends up requiring this.

You can imagine what his less charitable opponents make out of that.

ROB BELL PREACHES A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LESSER GOD WHO DOESN’T EVEN EXIST FOREVER!!!11!

Not true; but if they said he accidentally requires this through his method of trying to avoid having “eonian” mean endlessly hopeless punishment, that would be true enough. It gets more ridiculous, though.

#90

MORE RIDICULOUS THAN IMPLYING THE GOD HE HIMSELF BELIEVES IN DOESN’T REALLY EXIST IF HIS INSISTED READING OF ‘EONIAN’ IS TRUE??!

Well, maybe not more ridiculous, but pretty close: he himself also insists very strongly (including in this chapter) that God is acting to bring about a world of perfect love and justice that will, once established in the next life (however long that takes), go on forever in just the way he denies heaven means ‘forever’ back here: as a matter of human and natural history.

TO SUMMARIZE, THEN, SOMETIMES WHEN JESUS USED THE WORD “HEAVEN”, HE WAS SIMPLY REFERRING TO GOD, USING THE WORD AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE NAME OF GOD, BUT GOD IS NOT FOREVER IN THE WAY THAT WE THINK OF FOREVER; THAT’S NOT A CONCEPT WE FIND IN THE BIBLE.

SECOND, SOMETIMES WHEN JESUS SPOKE OF HEAVEN, HE WAS REFERRING TO THE FUTURE COMING TOGETHER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN WHAT HE AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES CALLED LIFE IN THE AGE TO COME, BUT THIS LIFE IS NOT FOREVER IN THE WAY THAT WE THINK OF FOREVER; THAT’S NOT A CONCEPT WE FIND IN THE BIBLE.

ACCORDING TO ROB BELL.

Wow, it’s like you were reading what Rob himself wrote in the book!–even better than Rob was reading it! And he wrote the thing! :wink:

He ends up implying these points which (I want to stress) he doesn’t really mean and would otherwise affirm elsewhere. But he ends up implying those self-refutations because he’s trying to cheat on his opposition again. In order to avoid even the idea that hell might be ‘forever’ the way Rob himself thinks God and the life of the age to come (i.e. heaven) are ‘forever’, Rob ends up directly (though not explicitly) denying that God and the life of the age are forever.

To put it mildly, he could have handled this point a lot better. But his opponents are not likely to do that work of handling it better for him. They’re likely to hysterically reject his attempt, the end, period.

#91

SO IT’S ONLY TRASH FROM HERE OUT IN THE CHAPTER? OR IS ANYTHING ELSE GOOD LEFT?

Plenty good left!

I liked his discussion of the wealthy young ruler who comes to Christ (in the Synoptic Gospels–Rob pulls mostly from the account in GosMatt 19) asking “What good thing must I do to get eternal life?” Rob could have made the same point even more strongly with some more detail–the relevant phrase in Greek, in GosMark and GosLuke, is actually “what shall I do to be enjoying the allotment of the life eonian”? Which would fit Rob’s observation that this rich young synagogue leader (or “chief”, which is the term used in the Gospels for that position) isn’t worried about what to do to go to heaven. He figures he has that covered already! (Nor, like a similar character, possibly the same character, earlier in the story as reported in GosLuke, is he asking the question for purposes of testing what Jesus will answer. He desperately wants to know.)

Rob observes that Jesus, in answering this question, leaves out asking whether the man has kept the 10th commandment, about coveting. Which turns out to be the commandment this man is breaking!–and which, when pressed on practical activity to remedy (give up his belongings), he refuses to stop breaking.

Or so Rob plausibly explains; and it’s an explanation that has the merit of synching up with the Gospel authors’ interpretation of what happened: “He went away very sorrowful, for he was very rich”. And the followup conversation to that scene (with variants in each Gospel) tends to be about difficulty letting go of wealth, too.

I could spend more time praising this portion…

WE SENSE A “BUT”.

…yeah, there’s a pretty big “but” coming, I have to admit:

#92

Rob directly and flatly avoids talking about something else Jesus also expected that man to do. And how that other expectation connects to the fact that Jesus starts with the ‘second tablet’ of the commandments first, instead of the ‘first tablet’. Which involves following God alone without idolatry, no lesser lord or god. But which Jesus then puts on par with following Himself. Which a Jew, much moreso one religiously educated enough to already be a synagogue chief at a young age, might have had at least an immediate problem with, too.

THAT’S A BIG POINT FOR HIM TO FLATLY AVOID!!

I can fairly say I don’t think Rob did so in order to deny the divinity of Jesus; he affirms that well enough in other places. Consequently, I even doubt he avoided it here in order to give sceptical readers fewer problems in seeing a point that anyone ought to be able to grasp even if they deny (for various reasons) the uniquely special and authoritative divinity of Jesus.

But I can’t help but notice that Rob does avoid even getting close to that side of the story here. And I can’t help but suspect a reason why he avoids it.

BECAUSE HE THINKS IT WOULD BLOW HIS THESIS!

#93

Maybe he thinks it would only distract from the point he’s trying to make. But his main point here isn’t, after all, that the rich young chief was covetous (though Rob trucks a lot of worthwhile mileage from that, too, especially in regard to entering the kingdom). His main point here, as he explicitly introduces this and other examples afterward, is that when given an opportunity to present “the gospel of salvation”, Jesus tends to do something other than how evangelicals are taught to evangelize! Jesus doesn’t always, or even usually, lead them through anything equivalent to the “Roman Road”, and He certainly doesn’t teach them the (so-called) Athanasian Creed with a warning that in order to avoid hopeless endless torment they must first and foremost affirm and hold to all those doctrines.

That’s a good point to make, too; in fact I’ll add it here:

6.) Jesus’ idea of what a person has to do to enter ‘eternal life’ differs in practice pretty strongly from how evangelists are typically taught to evangelize.

That’s an important thing to keep in mind; but it’s also important to keep in mind that Jesus expected that rich young ruler to give up everything in order to follow Himself as the way to have eternal life.

Rob doesn’t deny that following Jesus is necessarily connected to having (and enjoying!) ‘eonian life’. He affirms it plenty of other places. But it’s hard (for me anyway) to avoid thinking that he avoided this important detail because he didn’t want to distract readers with how important it is to follow Jesus for having eternal life!

He has a tough row to hoe in this book already, against standard reader expectations (whether religious or irreligious). I can understand him want to avoid adding to his problems. But by trying to avoid problems here, in this way, he only gives opponents more ammunition to hang him with. (Or words to that effect. :wink: )

Maybe his opponents ought to pay attention to where he affirms this importance elsewhere, and so not give him trouble about it here. But maybe Rob should have spent a little time mentioning it here, too, since after all it is important: important enough for Jesus to mention.

Anyway, I kept wincing whenever I noticed him not mentioning it. For whatever that wince may be worth.

#94

Other than that, I really liked his discussion on the rich young chief (which he comes back to again later in the chapter). I wish 890 people had thought it worthwhile to underline some of his comments in this area, all of which are quite true (instead of underlining that previous thing I complained about, where the phrase “personal relationship” is never found in the NT, which is only trivially true at best). “That’s why wealth is so dangerous: if you’re not careful you can easily end up with a garage full of nouns.” Awesome!

But, speaking of that worthless tactic of denying that a phrase occurs in the Bible as though this denies the concept, too: when Rob says “mansion” is a word nowhere in the Bible’s descriptions of heaven, that’s admittedly kind of misleading–and I can imagine opponents having some serious problems here, not so much with the way it’s trivially misleading, as with the way it indicates a habit of thought.

On one hand, anyone who immediately thinks of “In My Father’s house are many mansions”, as part of the promise of Christ to His disciples?–the word there is a rare word for “abode” or “dwelling” (used only once more in the NT), and doesn’t necessarily mean mansions.

On the other hand, the OT and NT both use figures for the city of God where the saints will live, which indicate the presence of rich mansions by means of surrounding description: streets are gold, everything in it is made of gems and marble, etc.

Rob is well aware of this, referencing such examples himself on occasion–including in the very same sentence he denies that the term “mansions in heaven!

BUT DOESN’T HE TREAT THE STREETS OF GOLD AS NOT BEING LITERAL? IN FACT, DIDN’T YOU SAY HE EARLIER MOCKS THE NOTION OF HEAVENLY IMAGERY BEING TAKEN LITERALLY?

Yes he does, and that brings me to the troubling point: he never bothers to mock hope in the other images he borrows about the day of the Lord to come. He treats those “earthy” images as something we can pretty literally expect to happen, and spends quite a bit of time contrasting those with our foolish naivety in taking other imagery just as seriously.

When he wants to make a point in favor of X, then he’s quite conveniently selective about which Biblical imagery to take seriously, namely that which is in favor of X.

In this case he has a good point to make about how we shouldn’t primarily think about heaven involving the acquisition of static things rather than being primarily about the fulfillment of relationships between things and especially between people. (Though he never uses the phrase “personal relationship” of course! :stuck_out_tongue: ) But then some of the Biblical imagery becomes a problem for him; and instead of finding a creative way to make use of it, too, perhaps for purposes of making a different but equally important claim about the Day of the Lord to come (where “static” imagery might refer to something importantly “permanent” for instance, as C. S. Lewis taught several times), Rob simply punts it away in the quickest and clumsiest fashions imaginable. Literal streets of gold?–hah! Expecting that is silly! The word “mansion” never appears in Biblical descriptions of heaven!

This wouldn’t be so bad, except it’s a habit of thought Rob’s opponents are rightly worried he’ll apply in other regards. “Without a personal relationship with Christ, a person will be hopelessly lost forever.” “The problem with this is that the phrase ‘personal relationship’ never appears in the New Testament!” So there! Q.E.D. you silly non-universalists.

#95

SO THE REST OF THIS CHAPTER GOES BACK TO CHEATING, HM?

No, that’s a passing problem, symptomatic of problems elsewhere, which might be easily overlooked in the wealth of good material surrounding it.

But even his good points get garbled a bit when it looks like he might have to grant parity of principle to his opponents.

So for example, Rob spends some time making strong points about how our attitude and what we do with our lives here and now, makes a difference in how we will be living in the new world to come.

BUT ALL CHRISTIANS TEACH THAT!

Right; so then the point becomes problematic when he wants to show he’s doing something different. Consequently, he asks afterward when trying to contrast himself to those false teachers over there who think “we’re going somewhere else”: “if you believe that you’re going to leave and evacuate to somewhere else, then why do anything about this world?”

BUT CHRISTIAN TEACHERS DON’T TEACH WE’RE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE, UNLESS THEY’RE POORLY EDUCATED GNAT-WITS WHO DON’T NOTICE THAT THE IMAGERY OF THIS WORLD BEING DESTROYED IS BALANCED AND EXCEEDED BY PROMISES OF THIS WORLD BEING REMADE!

I know.

AND EVEN IF THEY’RE POORLY EDUCATED GNAT-WITS, OR EVEN IF IT WAS IN FACT TRUE THAT WE’RE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE, ROB ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY PEOPLE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE COULD AND SHOULD STILL BE MORALLY EXPECTED TO DO JUSTICE HERE AND NOW!

I know. Not only because it’s right to do what is morally right anyway wherever we are, but because it makes a difference now in the kind of persons we’ll be later, whether or not we’re “somewhere else”.

But since his opponents can and do easily agree with him on this, he can’t just acknowledge that this would be true even if we’re going somewhere else (although we’re not) and even if his opponents taught we’re going somewhere else (which by and large they don’t). So he insinuates by a question that because they believe heaven will be somewhere else other than a transformed earth (which they may or may not believe) then it makes no difference whether we do justice here and now (which they definitely do not believe!)

#96

SO IT’S ALL CHEATING FROM HERE TO THE END OF THE CHAPTER THEN?

No, no. There are lots of good things still in this chapter, too.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE BELL IS PREACHING ONLY A LOVEY-DOVEY HEAVEN WHERE IT DOESN’T MATTER–

Okay, now you’re the one conveniently ignoring what Rob is saying (even only in my review report): Rob repeatedly affirms it does matter in this life for purposes of heaven in the next life.

NOT IF EVERYONE GOES INTO HEAVEN REGARDLESS!

But he isn’t saying “regardless”; not only will he be talking about hell soon, and not only hell in this life, but he even warns here in the heaven chapter that heaven brings judgment against sin.

“Heaven comforts, but… heaven also confronts. Heaven, we learn, has teeth, flames, edges, and sharp points. …] Jesus brings the man hope, but that hope bears within it judgment. …] Jesus makes no promise,” unlike some of Rob’s opponents by the way (though others of them agree with him on this), “that in the blink of an eye we will suddenly become totally different people who have vastly different tastes, attitudes and perspectives. Paul makes it very clear that we will have our true selves revealed and that once the sins and habits and bigotry and pride and petty jealousies are prohibited and removed, for some there simply won’t be much left. ‘As one escaping through the flames,’ is how he put it.”

#97

SOUNDS LIKE ROB IS PREACHING THAT THE ONLY OPTIONS ARE FORCED SALVATION OR ANNIHILATION!

No, he’ll be qualifying those observations later in favor of free will, too: those who insist on clinging to the dross mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3 will be persistently burned by that same fire mentioned in 1 Cor 3. But it is the same fire either way, and many (though not all) of Rob’s opponents want to deny this.

I wish 890 people had thought to underline things in this chapter such as: “Jesus calls disciples in order to teach us how to be and what to be; his intention is for us to be growing progressively in generosity, forgiveness, honesty, courage, truth telling, and responsibility, so that as these take over our lives we are taking part more and more and more in life in the age to come, now.”

There are loads of great things in this chapter: the faith of the thief on the cross, which is so much less than what Christian teachers often insist upon for salvation, but which Jesus accepts and immediately rewards. “According to Jesus, then, heaven is as far away as that day when heaven and earth become one again, and as close as a few hours.” The comparison between the poor abandoned mother of great character in the eyes of God, faithful with what little she has been given; and the beautiful, rich, famous, talented people endlessly embroiled in scandal and controversy who waste their talents and their money. The sheep in the judgment who are surprised to find out they’ve been serving Jesus all along, compared to those who are sure they’ll get in but are turned away by Jesus–

WAIT: BELL ACKNOWLEDGES PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY BY JESUS!!?

Surprisingly often, for people who aren’t expecting him to do so at all! (Though personally I wish he had mentioned the goats of the same judgment parable fit that bill as well. But anyone going to look to see if the sheep really don’t expect Jesus to be judging, much less accepting them, will see the goats easily enough.)

THEN WHY IS HE A UNIVERSALIST!? OR NOT A UNIVERSALIST BUT A UNIVERSALIST!? OR WHATEVER YOU SAID HE WAS?!

Because (to put it succinctly) he never treats that turning away as finally hopeless. More on that later.

#98

But until then, Rob goes pretty far agreeing with his opponents (though he never puts it that way). I wish 890 people had thought to underline these things, too:

“It’s important to remember this the next time we hear people say they can’t believe in a ‘God of judgment.’

“Yes, they can.

“Often, we can think of little else… every time we stumble upon one more instance of the human heart gone wrong, we shake our fist and cry out, ‘Will somebody please do something about this?’

“…] Same with the word ‘anger.’ When we hear people saying they can’t believe in a God who gets angry–yes, they can. How should God react to a child being forced into prostitution? How should God feel about a country starving while warlords hoard the food supply? What kind of God wouldn’t get angry at a financial scheme that robs thousands of people of their life savings?

“And that is the promise of the prophets in the age to come: God acts. Decisively. On behalf of everybody who’s ever been stepped on by the machine, exploited, abused, forgotten, or mistreated. God puts an end to it. God says, ‘Enough.’”

#99

AND YET ROB DOESN’T THINK GOD WIPES THOSE PERSONS OUT OF EXISTENCE OR THROWS THEIR WORTHLESS ASSES INTO HOPELESS ONGOING PUNISHMENT?!?

Rob keeps in mind that our asses are in the same sling, regardless of how ‘little’ we think our own contributions to that injustice are (which are likely to be more frequent than we would prefer to acknowledge!)

The judgment coming is the same whoever we are. But ‘our’ asses are no more worthy than ‘theirs’, and ‘theirs’ are no more worthless than ‘ours’ in the eyes of God: “In the midst of the prophets’ announcements about God’s judgment we also find promises about mercy and grace. Isaiah quotes God, saying, ‘Come… though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow’ (chap. 1).

“Justice and mercy hold hands, they kiss, they belong together in the age to come, an age that is complex, earthy, participatory, and free from all death, destruction, and despair.”

FOREVER!!!

Heh! Yeah he means forever here, not not-forever (or whatever) back when he doesn’t want forever to mean forever when talking about hell.

#100

Having complained about his cheating overreach there, though, I will add that I’m actually glad to see many more people underlining these next two portions than who underlined that cheating overreach I complained about earlier (where the phrase “personal relationship” never appears in the Bible.)

“To say it again, eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection to God.” (1042 highlighters there.)

“Eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts now. It’s not about a life that begins at death; it’s about experiencing the kind of life now that can endure and survive even death.” (985 highlighters.)

There, by the way, is one of his few obscure references to something I thought he should have brought out far more strongly: those who have eonian life now still die; and still are transformed after death. Thanks to the One Who Himself is the Resurrection and the Life!

I like how Rob puts it near this (and toward the end of this chapter). Even though we may have eonian life now, in this life, it’s still like trying to play a piano with oven mitts. Or trying to embrace our lover with a hazmat suit. (I thought that one was especially appropriate!) Or like trying to have a detailed conversation about complex emotions, but we’re underwater. Or like trying to taste the 32 different spices in curry, but our mouth is filled with gravel.