.

I still don't know who Justin Bieber is.

But I'm getting sick of hearing his name.

.

Re: Rob Bell. I have a (mere) question that I think is perfect for this space and, specifically, Bird.

Someone pointed out to me the other day that where Rob Bell comes down on the issue of Heaven and Hell is, more or less, where CS Lewis came down in The Great Divorce (and, perhaps, elsewhere). I was not aware of this "fact." To what extent is this similarity the case and, if true, why haven't you bidden a farewell to Clive?

Thanks Karl. I don't know how I missed that post. I'll check it out now . . .

But rather to point out that we are often too quick and too selective with our anathemas.

Maybe. But do you see any difference between the credibility that Lewis built up with Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Weight of Glory, etc regarding his own orthodoxy versus the author in question here, that might help give Lewis a heftier benefit of the doubt?

Lewis admired MacDonald greatly as an author. Show me a glowing Lewis review of MacDonald's theology. I don't think you'll find one (unless I've missed something). Unlike most of us, Lewis knew how to think in complex terms about other people, and could be glowing in his praise of Universalists like MacDonald and atheists like the Great Knock without adhering to their beliefs or jettisoning his own orthodoxy.

Lewis would never have been accepted as an elder nor allowed to even teach Sunday school, in most conservative evangelical (esp. reformed) churches.

Balderdash! :-)

If this is based on anachronistic exceptions to Lewis' drinking and smoking. We can't expect a mid-twentieth century British gentleman to adhere to modern American mores.

I'd be thrilled to have Lewis teach my class!

Quaid: Someone pointed out to me the other day that where Rob Bell comes down on the issue of Heaven and Hell is, more or less, where CS Lewis came down in The Great Divorce (and, perhaps, elsewhere).

This one is very confusing to me. The Great Divorce is, first of all, fiction, but even then it doesn't teach anything approaching Universalism. There are people in Hell in TGD who stay there. And there is a time coming in the story after which a choice is too late. It does represent people already dead having a chance to move from Hell to Heaven, but, I *believe* Lewis deals with this in the forward, the book is not meant to be a theological treatment of the afterlife.

[getting more and more nervous with every passing second . . .]

In fact, I would never say "I'm an inclusivist"!

I'm just hopeful and a big fan of God's sovereignty.

Bill and Bird, take a look at the Lewis quotes I offered in the previous "Train Wreck" post thread. He went beyond speculating via fiction.

I too have read a lot of Lewis and much of it many times over, and consider him a friend and mentor "as much as is possible with a dead author." Another couple of my real-life mentors are published Lewis scholars, one of whom I believe Bill met in England. CSL's thinking has shaped my faith far more than any other single person.

I think Lewis went way beyond "thinking out loud" about inclusivism. I'm pretty comfortable saying he WAS an inclusivist - see those quotes and their context, from Reflections on the Psalms, from his letters, from Mere Christianity and Screwtape and The Last Battle and The Great Divorce. Yes, he repudiated universalism and believed in hell - though not necessarily in eternal conscious torment the way it's taught in most evangelical circles. He thought MacDonald was wrong on universalism. But Lewis was an inclusivist, and that is one reason why I say he couldn't teach Sunday School in most conservative churches - nothing to do with his heavy smoking and drinking although I bet a lot of churches would disqualify him on those grounds too. (lots of evangelical churches would also bar CSL because he wasn't an inerrantist, either).

Inclusivism isn't something he made a huge deal of because in his mind it was an unresolvable debate and the question of inclusivism vs. exclusivism vs. even a robust universalism, fell well outside of the bounds of "mere Christianity." i.e. it isn't part of the salvific core and one can be any of the above and expect to see heaven. He certainly expected to see Universalist George MacDonald, who he called "My Greatest Teacher" - in heaven.

Yes, Lewis was able to see good in people with whom he violently disagreed over theological matters and even who he feared were lost. See his friendship with Owen Barfield and their "great war" over Barfield's belief in Rudolph Steiner's Anthroposophy, an early ancestor of today's New Age. But listen to Lewis writing about MacDonald, in his introduction to George MacDonald: An Anthology. This goes way beyond appreciation for MacDonald's literary ability:

"This collection, as I have said, was designed not to revive MacDonald's literary reputation but to spread his religious teaching. Hence most of my extracts are taken from the three volumes of Unspoken Sermons. My own debt to this book is almost as great as one man can owe to another: and nearly all serious inquirers to whom I have introduced it acknowledge that it has given them great help—sometimes indispensable help toward the very acceptance of the Christian faith.

I kind of think that's a bit of a red herring.

No it's not :-) - you're accusing people of hypocrisy for not giving Bell the benefit of the doubt they give Lewis (and for thinking Lewis is great when their churches wouldn't let him teach). I'm saying that Lewis is beloved for good reason, and has plenty of orthodox credibility that Bell hasn't yet earned (from what I understand, I don't know much about Bell).

But I'm just being dumb and reacting, causing us to argue past each other, because even though I know you're not saying "Lewis = Bell", you came close and that bugged.

And if Bell really is a universalist - which it does sound like he may be or at least may be flirting with - then again let's follow the example of Lewis and tackle the specific issue of universalism, without attacking the man with snide and cutting remarks, and assuming all manner of bad things about his heart and motives.

Well, I would agree with that. I'm not in favor of snide and cutting remarks about Bell (who I've never read and haven't posited an opinion on). I'm good, however, with going hammer and tongs over matters of doctrine (Lewis also appeared to be in favor of that) I support the tone of the few reviews I've read. I haven't read most blogospheric treatment of this, so I probably missed some of the worst. I pretty much only read Thinklings and Jared's blog.

Grace is good.

I should disclose that I am a little biased because I was in the same dorm as Rob in college, and we had some mutual friends although I didn't know him. I guess much like some people badly "want" CSL to not really have been an inclusivst or non-inerrantist, I also kind of "want" Rob to not be a universalist or otherwise still be viewed as within the pale. But I honestly am trying to put that bias aside and be objective. I thought "sex god" was Rob's best work. I also really liked some of his Nooma vids; in the hands of a good and biblically schooled facilitator many of them can be great discussion generators in small group settings. I feel like I "get" what he is doing or trying to do in opening up space for dialogue and questions within the bounds of orthodoxy, more than alot of his evangelical detractors do. In most of his works he has passages that are lyrically beautiful and true, and worship-inspiring. I am glad that the CT piece for example, acknowledges this and does so as more than a-quick-aside-before-we-slam-him. But Rob also makes me uncomfortable and in some places I just flat disagree with him and find what he is saying to be regrettable and even dangerous - to the extent that he says anything definite enough to sink the teeth of full-on "disagreement" into.

Not knowing the context of what Lewis wrote, and still not accepting that he was a universalist (which I don't think you believe either) . . .

All that being said, you are correct. I was wrong.

Karl,

I think I fall in the same category as you in thinking that Bell still may have much to contribute to the Church, even though I find his doctrine greatly lacking. I spent much time reading some of Origen last year, and - although his interpretation of scripture was sometimes inflated - I profited much from his insights.

Having said that, I believe that Bell has stepped out of bounds and I wonder to what extent he believes he has stepped out of bounds since the uprising began a few weeks ago. Given the refined criticism he has received at the hands of bloggers, magazines, journalists and fellow pastors (some criticism legit, other criticism not as much), certainly he has to have had some "checks" in his spirit.

I wonder if he still stands by everything he has written, or if he's just obliging the publisher and trying to sell books. Some of the legitimate criticism refutes many of his stances pretty well, almost too well. I don't know how, but I feel that his book could have argued his stance better than it did.

Quaid, you ask some good questions. I think Rob may be in a position similar to some of those in the post-great-awakening generations in New England who at first remained orthodox (barely) but in trying to distance themselves from their over-zealous (as they saw them) forefathers sowed the seeds that ended up in some sub-orthodox versions of the faith, such as some forms of liberal protestantism, or unitarianism. The first ones to cut the boat's tether didn't necessarily live long enough to see how far away from shore the boat would drift. I don't think Rob sees a problem with what he believes and he's smart and educated enough and has enough of a Christian background (Wheaton college, Fuller seminary) that there isn't much that he will hear from his critics that he couldn't articulate just as well as they could - he just disagrees with them. So I doubt we will see him recant, though on some issues I wish he would.

Going back to your suggestion that Rob's stepped out of bounds - I agree there are some places I too think he is out of bounds. But unlike some, I tend to think that just because someone is out of bounds on some issues doesn't necessarily mean they are not to be listened to on any issues. I mentioned above in the thread some of his writings and work (Sex God and some of the Noomas, parts of Velvet Elvis and "everything is spiritual") that I think are extremely thought provoking, edifying and on target.

Shrode, MacDonald's universalism probably wasn't original to MacDonald either. It goes back to some of the early church fathers, though it has always been a small minority position and has been in varying degrees condemned throughout church history (tolerated but disagreed with as Lewis toward MacDonald, or anathematized as rank heresy of the sort that puts one in danger of hellfire, as some of Bell's critics toward Bell). I kind of doubt Bell got his ideas from MacDonald so he probably doesn't credit him.


BTW to anyone still reading, CNN sat down with Rob for an interview a few days ago. While Rob denies that he's a universalist, I don't think his answers will satisfy his critics either:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/19/rob-bell-punches-back-against-claims-of-heresy/?hpt=C2

Sorry for the multiple repeat posts guys, but Mark Galli of CT has another piece up (different from his review of Bell's book which I also liked and linked in the "train wreck" thread) that takes a look at these issues. MacDonald is mentioned:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/marchweb-only/rob-bell-universalism.html