Francis Chan and Rob Bell: A good review of Francis Chan's book 'Erasing Hell'
Thursday, July 7, 2011 at 9:47AM In April I reposted a review of Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins' (follow the previous link to read that post).
Today I would like to repost a great review by invisibleforeigner of Francis Chan's book 'Erasing Hell'.
Last week I participated in a radio interview on this topic - there were three perspectives, a conservative, a moderate and my own. In my view Rob Bell does make some mistakes in his reasoning and presentation. However, the wonderful challenge that he raises must not be discounted! He reminds us that God cares about this world. He reminds us that our lives have consequences today (not just in the afterlife). He reminds Christians that we are called to be part of God's transforming, healing, and renewing mission for the earth and all that lives on it and in it.
Here is invisibleforeigner's book review of Francis Chan's book which seeks to present an alternative to Rob Bell's 'Love Wins'.I'd love to hear your thoughts on either Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins', or Francis Chan's book 'Erasing Hell'.Francis Chan’s new book, Erasing Hell, written with Preston Sprinkle, clearly aims to respond to and refute Rob Bell’s Love Wins. While Erasing Hell is written in Chan’s annoying conversational style, which made it hard to take seriously, I was glad to see the extensive use of Bible passages, as well as a more in-depth look at the historical context of first-century Israel. Whereas Rob Bell seemed determined to avoid any definitive statements about hell or universalism, Francis Chan is not afraid to say what he thinks the Bible says about hell. He also sees fit to take unnecessary digs at more traditional, liturgically-heavy denominations: “If hell is some primitive myth left over from conservative tradition, then let’s set it on that dusty shelf next to other traditional beliefs that have no basis in Scripture” (16). This was, of course, an early signal that Chan’s understanding of hell ultimately comes down to how he reads the Bible.
While I admire his willingness to reconsider the doctrine of hell, Chan basically reaffirms the traditional understanding: it will be painful, most likely everyone who isn’t Christian will be there, and the punishment will not be corrective but retributive. The only thing he remains unsure about, in the end, is whether or not hell will be eternal. “While I lean heavily on the side that says it is everlasting, I am not ready to claim that with complete certainty” (86).
As I read the book, I realized that there were two main questions that any book on theology and doctrine should probably attempt to address. First, what does the Bible say about hell? Chan and his coauthor do an admirable job of trying to work through the scriptures. However, they don’t really address the issue that I think is deeper, and frankly, more interesting: Is the Bible the final word on this issue? The second question is far harder to answer, particularly if you are Protestant and like to emphasize sola scriptura. Chan will obviously answer yes, demonstrated by his emphasis on the Bible, and in particular on the words of Jesus.
If Chan is right, and if his reading of the Bible really is correct, there really isn’t much wiggle room. Ultimately, the answer for unanswerable doctrinal issues, such hell, becomes: first, God reveals himself in the Bible, and, second, “God has the right to do WHATEVER he pleases” (18). The lack of scriptural evidence for second chances for salvation after death, in particular, means that we have to at least provisionally conclude that those second chances don’t exist. Whatever injustice we see in this scheme of salvation cannot be answered on this earth, Chan says, because “It’s incredibly arrogant to pick and choose which incomprehensible truths we embrace” (136).
I found this answer, in the end, unsatisfying. God created us with reason and with intelligence, he gave us the Bible and tradition and human institutions, however flawed they may be, to struggle over critical issues. While ultimately we will probably say, as Job did, that we spoke of things too wonderful to understand, we should still speak of them. It’s not arrogant to find the traditional understanding of hell repugnant, and Chan’s ultimate dismissal of those who still find the Bible’s answer unsatisfying was disappointing. Simply because God is too big to grasp doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
