"The children of God should not have any other country here below but the universe itself, with the totality of all the reasoning creatures it ever has contained, contains, or ever will contain. That is the native city to which we owe our love." --Simone Weil
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Talkin' 'Bout Hell...and Rob Bell, and Osama bin Laden
My "blogginheads.tv" conversation with Princeton professor Kathryn Gin--about hell, the controversy generated by Rob Bell's book Love Wins, and the eternal fate of Osama bin Laden--is now available. Enjoy!
I don´t know if you are aware that in a recent video Alvin Plantinga speaks rather positively about universalism, indeed says that a Christian should be a hopeful universalist (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhohcPhMdxs ). Commenting on this, two academic philosophers at Prosblogion wrote that years ago Plantinga had told them that universalism seemed to him more likely to be true than not.
I enjoyed this conversation. One question that you and Prof. Gin shared was, "Why did Carlton Pearson take a hit by being open about his position on hell, whereas Rob Bell was strengthened?"
I think you answered the question when later observing that Bell is an agnostic regarding ultimate universalism (i.e., he is a "hopeful universalist", which is socially safe, whereas Pearson is a "convinced universalist", which is not).
Also, I am sorry about your loss of your dad. I look forward to meeting him.
Hermano Cisco
PS I can't find any search mechanism on your blog, which, because of its large size, would be most welcome. I was searching to see if you have any comments about Kevin Miller's upcoming documentary, "Hellbound?" Note to your readers: please pray for the impact of "Hellbound?" [see http://www.facebook.com/HellboundtheMovie?sk=wall]
"I think you answered the question when later observing that Bell is an agnostic regarding ultimate universalism (i.e., he is a "hopeful universalist", which is socially safe, whereas Pearson is a "convinced universalist", which is not)."
It's certainly true that there is this important difference between the two. In fact, once Bell's book came out one was left to wonder what all the hype was about--Bell sounds pretty close to C.S. Lewis on hell.
But that fact itself leads me to think that your explanation of the different responses to Bell and Pearson isn't quite sufficient. Simply put, much of Bell's notoriety--both positive and negative--came before his provocative promotional remarks were clarified by the release of his book (that is, before his actual position became clear). Put simply, there was a strong community that was vocally sympathetic to Bell even before he came out as merely a hopeful universalist (when many took him to be a confident universalist).
Ultimately, the modesty of his position is surely an important part of the reason why the public response to him was less negative than to Pearson--but I think there has also been a change in evangelical culture. And I also think that Bell's target audience was a segment of the evangelical community in which an openness to universalist ideas is stronger than was the case for Pearson.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteI don´t know if you are aware that in a recent video Alvin Plantinga speaks rather positively about universalism, indeed says that a Christian should be a hopeful universalist (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhohcPhMdxs ). Commenting on this, two academic philosophers at Prosblogion wrote that years ago Plantinga had told them that universalism seemed to him more likely to be true than not.
Hi Eric,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this conversation. One question that you and Prof. Gin shared was, "Why did Carlton Pearson take a hit by being open about his position on hell, whereas Rob Bell was strengthened?"
I think you answered the question when later observing that Bell is an agnostic regarding ultimate universalism (i.e., he is a "hopeful universalist", which is socially safe, whereas Pearson is a "convinced universalist", which is not).
Also, I am sorry about your loss of your dad. I look forward to meeting him.
Hermano Cisco
PS I can't find any search mechanism on your blog, which, because of its large size, would be most welcome. I was searching to see if you have any comments about Kevin Miller's upcoming documentary, "Hellbound?"
Note to your readers: please pray for the impact of "Hellbound?" [see http://www.facebook.com/HellboundtheMovie?sk=wall]
Hermano,
ReplyDelete"I think you answered the question when later observing that Bell is an agnostic regarding ultimate universalism (i.e., he is a "hopeful universalist", which is socially safe, whereas Pearson is a "convinced universalist", which is not)."
It's certainly true that there is this important difference between the two. In fact, once Bell's book came out one was left to wonder what all the hype was about--Bell sounds pretty close to C.S. Lewis on hell.
But that fact itself leads me to think that your explanation of the different responses to Bell and Pearson isn't quite sufficient. Simply put, much of Bell's notoriety--both positive and negative--came before his provocative promotional remarks were clarified by the release of his book (that is, before his actual position became clear). Put simply, there was a strong community that was vocally sympathetic to Bell even before he came out as merely a hopeful universalist (when many took him to be a confident universalist).
Ultimately, the modesty of his position is surely an important part of the reason why the public response to him was less negative than to Pearson--but I think there has also been a change in evangelical culture. And I also think that Bell's target audience was a segment of the evangelical community in which an openness to universalist ideas is stronger than was the case for Pearson.