Guest Editorial: Rob Bell and liberal theology, part 2
(Editor’s Note: This is the conclusion (Part 2) of Southern Seminary President Al Mohler’s comments on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Part 1 appeared in the April 7 Baptist Messenger.)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)—He (Bell) also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible—even probable—that those who resist, reject or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:14). Bell says he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life to be saved. “What if the missionary gets a flat tire?” he asks.
But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:25) mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:15). The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.
Like so many others, Bell wants to separate the message of Jesus from other voices even in the New Testament, particularly the voice of the Apostle Paul. Here we face the inescapable question of biblical authority. We will either affirm that every word of the Bible is true, trustworthy and authoritative, or we will create our own Bible according to our own preferences. Put bluntly, if Jesus and Paul are not telling the same story, we have no idea what the true story is.
Bell clearly prefers inclusivism, the belief that Christ is saving humanity through means other than the Gospel, including other religions. But he mixes up his story along the way, appearing to argue for outright universalism on some pages, but backing off of a full affirmation. He rejects the belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but he never clearly lands on a specific account of what he does believe.
Tellingly, Bell attempts to reduce all of the Bible and the entirety of the Gospel to story, and he believes it is his right and duty to determine which story is better than another—which version of Christianity is going to be compelling and attractive to unbelievers. He has, after all, set that as his aim—to replace the received story with something he sees as better.
The first problem with this is obvious. We have no right to determine which “story” of the Gospel we prefer or think is most compelling. We must deal with the Gospel we received from Christ and the Apostles, the faith once for all delivered to the church. Suggesting that some other story is better or more attractive than that story is an audacity of breathtaking proportions. The church is bound to the story revealed in the Bible—and in all of the Bible . . . every word of it.
But there is a second problem, and it is one we might think would have been learned by now. Liberalism just does not work. Bell wants to argue that the love of God is so powerful that “God gets what God wants.” So, God desires the salvation of all, he argues, so all will eventually be saved—some even after death, even long after death. But he cannot maintain that account for long because of his absolute affirmation of human autonomy. Even God cannot or will not prevent someone from going to hell who is determined to go there. So, if Bell is taken on his own terms, even he does not believe that “God gets what God wants.”
Similarly, Bell’s argument is centered in his affirmation of God’s loving character, but he alienates love from justice and holiness. This is the traditional liberal line. Love is divorced from holiness and becomes mere sentimentality. Bell wants to rescue God from any teaching that His wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners, certainly in any eternally conscious sense. But Bell also wants God to vindicate the victims of murder, rape, child abuse and similar evil. He seems not to recognize that he has undercut his own story, leaving God unable or unwilling to bring true justice.
In truth, any human effort to offer the world a story superior to the comprehensive story of the Bible fails on all fronts. It is an abdication of biblical authority, a denial of biblical truth and a false Gospel. It misleads sinners and fails to save. It also fails in its central aim—to convince sinners to think better of God. The real Gospel is the Gospel that saves—the Gospel that must be heard and believed if sinners are to be saved.
But this is where Rob Bell’s book goes most off-course. He describes the Gospel in these words:
“It begins in the sure and certain truth that we are loved. That in spite of whatever has gone horribly wrong deep in our hearts and has spread to every corner of the world, in spite of our sins, failures, rebellion and hard hearts, in spite of what has been done to us or what we’ve done, God has made peace with us.”
Missing from Bell’s Gospel is any clear reference to Christ, any adequate understanding of our sin, any affirmation of the holiness of God and His pledge to punish sin, any reference to the shed blood of Christ, His death on the cross, His substitutionary atonement and His resurrection, and, so tellingly, any reference to faith as the sinners response to the Good News of the Gospel. There is no genuine Gospel here. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism.
H. Richard Niebuhr famously once distilled liberal theology into this sentence: “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
Yes, we have read this book before. With Love Wins, Rob Bell moves solidly within the world of Protestant liberalism. His message is a liberalism arriving late on the scene. Tragically, his message will confuse many believers as well as countless unbelievers.
We dare not retreat from all the Bible says about hell. We must never confuse the Gospel, nor offer suggestions that there may be any way of salvation outside of conscious faith in Jesus Christ. We must never believe we can do a public relations job on the Gospel or on the character of God. We must never be unclear and subversively suggestive about what the Bible teaches.
In the opening pages of Love Wins, Rob Bell assures his readers that “nothing in this book hasn’t been taught, suggested or celebrated by many before me.” That is true enough. But the tragedy is that those who did teach, suggest or celebrate such things were those with whom no friend of the Gospel should want company. In this new book, Rob Bell takes his stand with those who have tried to rescue Christianity from itself. This is a massive tragedy by any measure.
The problem begins even with the book’s title. The message of the Gospel is not merely that love wins—it is that Jesus saves.