Escape from Eden

It's not every week that Time Magazine does a cover story on one's master's thesis. While Pastor Rob Bell's new book Love Wins isn't the subject of my thesis itself, it speaks to the perceived paradigm shift in the Evangelical climate that I'm currently exploring. The premise of the book comes from a note Bell saw that basically says that Gandhi is in Hell because he wasn't a Christian. Naturally, given Gandhi's acclaim for good works and the incompatability of his religious disposition with the Evangelical credentials for salvation, this gave Bell cause to reflect on the imperative behind Evangelism's soteriology and *POOF* out comes Love Wins (not creatio ex nihilo, but *POOF* just for dramatic effect. Only God could create from nothing, obviously..). The book contends generously and thoughtfully that the redemptive work of Jesus may be universal, and therefore everyone gets saved. Hooray! Why would anyone have a problem with this is everyone wins?

Well, for starters, we live in a competitive individualistic culture that disdains the idea of everyone winning. We like winning over others, knowing that we are better, superior. We like the idea of middle class, knowing that there is something to aspire to, and something to avoid. Thus, Bell's suggestion of soteriological universalism not only doesn't sit well with many Americans, but they find it outrageous! Hell (no pun intended), its indiscriminate equal appraisal of all stinks remotely of socialism or communism (for those who don't know the difference). Maybe Bell is in league with Obama? Maybe we should check his birth certificate to see that he was born to Christian parents... I hope sarcasm can be conveyed via text.

Needless to say, the book has not had a very positive reception among Bell's pastor peers from around the nation. And with good reason. Of course, there is the logical theological implication that if one facet of Evangelical theology is undermined by calling it into doubt, then every other facet of Evangelical theology can fall under scrutiny. It's a serious concern, but given Christianity's history of recantations and adaption of its theological position – specifically relating to science (since it can be proven) – the hegemony will find a way to reconcile heretical ideas with dogma. And if it doesn't, defectors can simply form another church with reformed beliefs; isn't that why there are so many of them?

But this line of thought is only secondary to what's truly at stake. As R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theology Seminary (as quoted in Time) fears: " When you adopt universalism and erase the distinction of between the church and the world... then you don't need the church, and you don't need Christ, and you don't need the cross. This is the tragedy of non-judgmental mainline liberalism., and it's Rob Bell's tragedy in this book too." What Mohler really is saying in the first part of the quote is that if Bell's sympathetic hermeneutic is true, then many pastors and others in the field will be out of jobs, as the shares of a private industry will have gone public. After all, religion is very much a business. Those who run it would do well to drive its demand that they can continue to profit off of supplying it. The pejorative reaction against Bell is a classic case of the what Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart recognizes as the politics of accommodated interests superseding civic virtue (with the understanding that civil virtue might signify salvation for everyone...). The second part of the quote mentions the tragedy of "non-judgmental mainline liberalism". This could be taken in a number of ways, but I'm going to go ahead and say that NJML (for short) is competition and bad for business. Obviously, given the reduction of what I'll call Soul Capital (to borrow from Bourdieu), it's understandable that a Baptist leader might find the Other as tragic. Plus, until a survey comes out correlating how happy religious liberals and conservatives are with their traditions and in general, any defamation against the lack of merit in the other is moot

As quoted in Time: "Bell insists he is only raising the possibility that theological rigidity – and thus a faith of exclusion – is a dangerous thing." And so it is, as the Crusades, Pogroms, Inquisition, and numerous other Holy Wars have demonstrated to the point at which one would think someone would realize that exclusive religion is a bad idea – or at least comes with steep costs. And Bell does. Raised on C.S. Lewis as a kid, Bell is aware of the eschatological relativism illustrated in the epilogue of the Last Battle in the Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan's sacrifice redeems them all. So too does Bell propose to reform Evangelical theology so that it's no longer a contentious Us vs. Them binary, but simply an Us monism. As his book title concisely and aptly summarizes, love wins. But if people are too attached to their exclusive imperative of confessing Christ and reaping all the mythologized rewards associated with His confession, that's ok. It would be unbecoming of us in this age of tolerance, diversity and free thinking to impose such a myopic view on our citizenry. Even though many believe in the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, we can safely assume that their piety is being channeled to Aslan anyway, thus we need not concern ourselves over ownership of the salvation conferred by Christ's sacrifice. After all, a couple siblings finding a talking lion on the other side of a wardrobe is just as plausible as a virgin birth, right?