My usual counter question is: “Why are Americans so fixated on hell?” Far more Americans ask me about hell than ever happens in my own country. And I really want to know, why is it that the most prosperous affluent nation on earth is really determined to be sure that they know precisely who is going to be frying in hell and what the temperature will be and so on. There’s something quite disturbing about that, especially when your nation and mine has done quite a lot in the last decade or two to drop bombs on people elsewhere and to make a lot of other people’s lives hell. So, I think there are some quite serious issues about why people want to ask that question.
Having said that, I am not a universalist. I’ve never been universalist. Someone quoted a theologian saying, “I’m not a universalist, but maybe God is.” That’s kind of a neat way of saying, “OK, there’s stuff in Scripture which is a little puzzling about this, and we can’t be absolutely sure all down the line.” But it seems to me that the New Testament is very clear that there are people who do reject God and reject what would have been His best will for them, and God honors that decision. How that works and how you then deal with the questions which result I have written about at some length.
I don’t think myself that Rob Bell has quite taken the same line that I did in Surprised by Hope. I haven’t actually had the conversation with Rob since his book was published. So, one of these days, we will and we’ll have that one out. I do think it’s good to stir things up because so many people, as I say, particularly in American culture, really want to know the last fine-tuned details of hell. And it seems to be part of their faith, often a central part of their faith that a certain number of people are simply going to go to hell and we know who these people are. I think Rob is saying, “Hey wait a minute! Start reading the Bible differently. God is not a horrible ogre who is just determined to fry as many people as He can forever. God is actually incredibly generous and gracious and wonderful and loving and caring. And if you paint a picture of God which is other than that, then you’re producing a monster and that has long-lasting effects in Christian lives and in the church.” (bold added)
HT: Trevin Wax
There are several sound bites in N.T. Wright’s response.
Perhaps Wright and Bell can put their future potential dialogue in a booklet or something to that effect.
The American Bible-belt is part of this answer, but too perhaps more Americans actually believe the Bible, more than the whole of the Brits?
And N.T. Wright is not always that conventional either!
I’ll take this as some kind of a compliment.
It is for the Americans, not really for the Brits as a whole or Wright of course. And certainly years ago there were generations of Brits who knew and loved the Scriptures.
Btw, I would label N.T. Wright as something of a Neo-Evangelical, and maybe even something a Neo-conservative (using the small c)
Again, note he has called himself an Open Evangelical (which is much more of a British thing).
This response is why I love N.T. Wright. I was wondering what Wright would say, thanks TCR for posting.
Kenny,
NTW, either ya love him or ya just don’t..so much! He is not the theological rock star as much in the UK however.
Pingback: N.T. Wright on Bell's hell and God's love - Gentle Wisdom
Thanks for posting this up…really like his take on it!
You guys are welcome.
|It is for the Americans, not really for the Brits as a whole or Wright of course. And certainly years ago there were generations of Brits who knew and loved the Scriptures.|
Fr. Robert,
Just today a brother and I were talking about how older generations loved the Scriptures even though many didn’t have formal type education. They just loved the Scriptures – KJV at that!
True,
I knew people, and some family and friends, as a boy who could quote whole chapters of the KJV! Some of these people were very wise Christians also. That breed is sadly for the most part gone now!
I love the scriptures and the church members who try to interpret them faithfully. N.T. Wrights overall project is just that, a love for the Scriptures over the idolatry of tradition.
One of great challenges in the Protestant Church is an understanding of the biblical idea of so-called “tradition”. A ‘handing down’, or on.., etc. It is usually doctrinal or teaching. The idea and reality is that of the apostolic instruction. And also here, NT Wright actually misses the best of the Reformation “tradition” in my opinion, (Acts 2:42/ 1 Cor. 11:2 / 2 Thess. 2:15 ; 3:6).
Fr. Robert,
Don’t forget that the Reformation tradition is just a beginning- semper reformanda.
TC,
Yes Amen, but the principle of the Reformation, set aside the medieval quadriga (the fourfold pattern of medieval exegesis). And the Reformers maintained the direct address of the text to the Church; the living voice (viva Vox Dei) of God speaks in and through the Scripture. And also here the Reformed preacher is but a servant and instrument! And it is also here that the modern critical exegesis can break down.
I really enjoyed N.T. Wright’s insightful response on this issue. Thanks for posting the transcript T.C.! I really think we makes a strong point that there are some gaps in scripture and it would be wise if we respected them. I think he he has a balanced stance on this issue: believing in Hell, while not taking the place of God in his judgments by going to lengths to define or determine exactly how/when/where/ and who will be there…..
Fr. Robert,
Yes, it’s amazing.
Kenny,
I think Wright is balanced on the whole issue of Hell.
Penny,
You’re welcome. Yes, I like Wright’s approach to the matter as well.
Absolutely love the quote. Thanks for posting it.
Jurgen Moltmann,Professor emeritus of theology at Tubingen University (and my favorite theologian), once said in an interview: I am not a Universalist because there are a few people I don’t want to see again, but God may be.
More “humanist” thought, rather than God’s Revelation! My thoughts anyway.
|Yes Amen, but the principle of the Reformation, set aside the medieval quadriga (the fourfold pattern of medieval exegesis). And the Reformers maintained the direct address of the text to the Church; the living voice (viva Vox Dei) of God speaks in and through the Scripture. And also here the Reformed preacher is but a servant and instrument! And it is also here that the modern critical exegesis can break down.|
Fr. Robert,
Yes, solid foundation to build on. Yes, viva Vox Dei! But in the rearview, the Reformation remains foundational – that’s the gift of it. I believe we make a mistake to treat it as an end in itself – hence, semper reformanda. In this, Luther and Calvin would be proud of their descendants.
TC,
It is my thought personally, that people like N.T. Wright have gone well beyond the principle of the Reformation. We simply must be bound by the text itself, and not our theological ability and ideas. Wright is brilliant, but he is much more of an Neo, Open Evangelical, then even a classic Anglican. But this is again 2011, and not the 18th, 19th or early 20th century. Even as something of an Arminian, I see for example John Wesley’s gospel much more Evangelical than Wright’s. For myself, I don’t see how we can recreate the Evangelical Gospel, certainly it is Reformational and even somewhat Reformed, but even there it moves down through God’s Salvation History itself. And it seems we cannot really change what is the essence of the Gospel of God itself! Again, my thoughts anyway.
Fr. Robert,
If you consider yourself something of an Arminian, and concluding that Wesley is even more Evangelical than Wright, then you don’t really stand in the Reformed position. It’s impossible.
TC,
I know that John Wesley was an Arminian, but he was also an Anglican one, and one of his own variety. If you read his large writing on the doctrine of Sin (his Collected Works), you can see that his doctrine of sin is very close to Calvin also. My point is that Wesley simply preached the doctrine of man’s total sinfulness, and also Christ’s subsitutionary death, and the justfication of the believer by faith. And in this simplicity I just don’t see N.T. Wright! Indeed, I can gather several moderns theolog’s who believed Wesley was something Calvinist on these issues! As an Anglican I have been a student somewhat of Wesley – the Anglican – for many years! Ya got to read the Man Wesley himself!
Fr. Robert,
A close pastor friend of mine, in the Wesleyan tradition, and I go back and forth on some of these issue all the time.
Of course we intersect theologically speaking, but our divergences can be somewhat huge. For example, a Wesleyan Arminian is still not a Calvinist.
TC,
I would surely agree that almost all Wesleyan Arminians (those that are still somewhat conservative today), are not Calvinist like. But, both Charles and John were just somewhat “Calvinist” in certain places theological. A close study of both men and brothers will show this out. Note many of Charles hymns, and John’s early sermons! And again, both were always somewhat English Anglicans. Note too, btw.. the affect of the Puritan’s on John…just factual!
Fr. Robert,
Perhaps we need to ask Who is a Calvinist and what makes the Wesleys “somewhat Calvinist”? Because they approximate Calvin on the doctrine of sin?
PS..I would place both John and Charles in the Anglican Evangelical camp, (of course too Methodist). I believe the early American Methodists were called Methodist Episcopal’s?
TC,
Indeed there, and on the doctrine of Justification. Which was also close to Luther for both John and Charles.
TC,
See also some of Frank Baker’s works on the Wesley’s. And too, John R. Tyson. Both are a bit dated now however, just like myself!
In fact I am sure Baker is before the Lord!
Fr. Robert,
As someone who is learned in historic theology, you should know that Wesleyans doctrine of sin and justification are not sufficient to make them classic Calvinist.
TC,
Your not listening to me, I said that they are simply “Calvinist” like in places, i.e. Sin, the Vicarious Death of Christ, Justification. Certainly much more so than old Tom Wright!
Fr. Robert,
Then such is not sufficient to make one a Calvinist.
TC,
Do you want me to gather quotes from the men I have mentioned? Remember even Wesley said: “Within a hair’s breadth of Calvinism”! “In this concept, likewise, he recognized his kinship with Calvinism and on one occasion went as far to say that he thought the same way on justication as John Calvin did.” (See his Journal, Tues., May 14, 1765)…’The Theology of John Wesley, by William R. Cannon (Abingdon).
Fr. Robert,
This kinship with Calvinism is not the same as Calvinism. It’s just a kinship.
TC,
Yes, this is true, but the nontheless it is a “kinship”! I have also this “kinship” to Calvinism, but I don’t really think I can be called a full Federal Calvinist? Perhaps almost, but I am really more of a Reformational Anglican, and there even a “biblicist” type. Perhaps I can call mine at least: Calvinism preaching Free Grace! And here I am I hope close to the Wesley’s!
Of course NT Wright’s thinking on hell (and others things like justification) actually go to and are informed by his scholarship on scripture in the context of first century Christianity. And his ideas on hell are actually converging with the Eastern Orthodox view of hell. So NT Wright’s ideas on hell are not new and novel, but find their proper place in the ancient Orthodox church. One of the pit falls of the Reformation is their complete ignorance of the Eastern church and their complete deconstruction of the Christian faith. This ultimately left them with only a book, and no authority or tradition with which to interpret this book. So the individual became king, and the interpretation of the individual, devoid of historical context and apostolic tradition, was the final say. Without doubt this has led to the fracturing of the church known as Protestantism. The fundamentalists within the Protestant tradition have, in effect, crowned their own popes – Calvin, Luther, Wesley to name a few. The liberals have only taken this principle of individual interpretation to its logical conclusion. Couple this with the cold, rational view of scripture one finds is Protestantism and you get all sorts of absurdities – young earth creationsim, dispensationalism, the myriad of teachings on the rapture, you could go on and on. Also the extremely literal renderings of scripture that one finds in Protestantism have led to all sorts of heresies that completely distort God’s character. They have turned God into a giant human being, where “God’s wrath” is interpreted as an emotion similar to human anger. Where God will whip up some sort of natural disaster if anyone violates one of his fetishes. Where “God is love” is interpreted as just one “attribute” of God rather than a statement of God’s being. Where the doctrine of the Trinity just becomes an answer to a theological problem. Where hell is a literal place. Where God’s justice is punitive and not restorative. And in all of this love for one another is forgotten. In all this love for those outside the church is forgotten. Self-righteousness, arrogance and ego reign supreme. All a product of this notion that all authority and tradition is to be shunned in favor of the individual.
But, of course, NT Wright’s views are based in scripture. He has just done a far more careful job of reading scripture in the way it was intended and in proper historical context. It’s no surprise that his views aren’t novel to those who understand church history and the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Reformers and their modern day disciples were asking questions that the scriptures never ask, like “how do I get more moral righteousness so that when i stand before judgment seat I won;t be condemned” and so on and so forth. It’s striking that the gospels and the Kingdom of God is almost completely missing from their expositions. It’s a stark example of anachranisms that have crept into the Protestant faith. Hell is just another example of this. With the West reading Jesus’ description of hell through their medieval glasses. Dante’s Inferno comes to mind. But this has nothing to do with what the apostles have taught. Had modern day protestants actually educated themselves on church history, they would know that their view of hell was not the only view of hell held be the church. Nor was it the dominant view until the great schism. They would know that penal substitutionary atonement was never dominant in the early church and that this particularly draconian view of the atonement was basically canonized by Calvin – many centuries after the apostles.
The arrogance of some, particularly the fundamentalists, is breathtaking. Daring to suggest that anyone who doesn’t agree with them on heaven and hell is a heretic. Completely unaware, it seems, that the Orthodox tradition does not agree with this view and has never taught it. The irony is that it was the Orthodox church who fought against all the early Christian heresies (gnosticism, arianism etc). Hence the name “Orthodox” (meaning right belief and practice). Hell and a number of other peculiar Western doctrines like pergatory are mostly the result of papal infallibility. A complete corruption of the faith. Had Luther looked East, rather than to himself, he would have seen that there was a tradition within the church that had nothing to do with papal indulgences. And, of course, we know Luther cherished some of the old Catholic ways such as anti-semitism and the doctrine of hell. His own sin-darkened mind still wanted to pander to his own prejudices rather than let God’s grace and love to all guide him in all things (this is a downfall of us all, but one does not build a faith on theit own individual preferences – the scripture is not for private interpretation!!).
But perhaps the Reformation should be seen as a long road back to the ancient faith, whereby cherished heirlooms like the Catholic doctrine of hell and penal substitutionary atonement can finally be relinquinched as one looks back to the faith of the apostles and early church. Many former protestants, sick of the fadishness and relativity of truth in evangelical circles, have converted to the Orthodox faith. These fads are evident both in fundamentalist and liberal circles – even though liberals are far more honest about what they are doing than the fundamentalists.
So the comments here about NT Wright are completely misinformed. Mostly a product of the various commentator’s desire to go back to the self-righteous protestant fundamentalism of the youth. Far be it that they let love reign as the scriptures teach us and as Wright is trying to get us to think about with his ‘kingdom” focus. It all comes back to me and my salvation with evangelicals and not what God is trying to do with creation.