The Crucified One and the Removal of All Distinctions Between People

This post is a part of my ongoing (slow and steady) blog series on The Crucified God The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann (CG). You can view the other posts in this series here.

We live in a world that is in many ways fractured and divided, by such things as geography, politics, nationalism, race, and culture.  But the division of all divisions is religion, whether we are talking about the divide between religions, the divides within a particular religion (such as the many denominations within Christianity), or (especially in our increasingly secular society) the divide between the religious and the irreligious. Christianity, like other religions in our world, creates and sustains distinctions between people; it does not remove them. 

But with the cross of Christ as a our “foundation and criticism”, these distinctions – especially religious ones – are profoundly called into question:

Continue reading The Crucified One and the Removal of All Distinctions Between People

The Cross and Universal (Cosmic) Salvation

Christ-Descent-into-Hell

Today is Holy Saturday, which is when the church reflects on the day that the body of Jesus lay dead in the tomb. I know many of us fast forward the story from Friday to Sunday (spoiler: Jesus is raised from the dead!), but I find it helpful to dwell a bit more on the death of Christ first. He suffered and died on Good Friday and was actually dead on Holy Saturday. Easter is not a magic trick where it is revealed that “you can’t really kill the Son of God.” Today, the Messiah was really dead and his followers cowered in defeat.  On the cross we see a picture of how God is victorious not by conquering but by being conquered. Easter is good news only because just as God raised the defeated and the godforsaken Christ… so he will also one day raise us (see my previous post, How does the suffering God give us hope?).   In that vein, today is also when many Christian traditions reflect on Christ’s descent into Hell (the ultimate place of godforsakenness). Below is a clip with transcript from the 2009 Emergent Village Theological Conversation with Moltmann, where he is asked about the concept of universal redemption as it relates to the themes of The Crucified God (it’s in Episode 3, if you want to listen to the whole conversation in context).  Here he makes powerful use of Martin Luther’s comments about Hell and the suffering of Christ:  “Don’t look at Hell in the destiny of others; don’t look at Hell in your own destiny. Look at Hell in the wounds of Christ; there Hell is overcome.”

Continue reading The Cross and Universal (Cosmic) Salvation

Nevertheless: universal hope

“Nevertheless: universal hope.” (G. Greshake, as quoted by Hans Urs von Balthasar)

I really appreciated Jürgen Moltmann’s thoughtful comments to me on the subject of universalism, especially this bit: “The destiny of unbelievers we should leave to God and hope and pray for them – There is for us a universalism of hope and prayer, I would say.” (to read the lest of the letter see this post).

I’ve read enough Moltmann to feel pretty comfortable calling him a Christian universalist (a fairly nuanced universalist within the Reformed tradition, but universalist nonetheless!). But what he offered to me in that letter was a toned-down hopeful (not dogmatic) universalism. We can (and perhaps must!) hold on to hope that all be saved, and pray that all be saved. But this is ultimately something that only God knows.
Continue reading Nevertheless: universal hope

A Letter from Jürgen Moltmann

Less than three weeks ago I mailed a letter to the famous German Reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann,  and have already received a very gracious response. He even signed the theologian trading card I enclosed with my letter! (I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there probably aren’t very many other theology nerds out there who can say that they have a signed Jürgen Moltmann card. Just sayin’….)

Continue reading A Letter from Jürgen Moltmann

Why Barth Wasn’t a Universalist (In His Own Words)

I’ve been reading quite a bit of Barth and Moltmann in the last year. In both cases, it’s hard not to pick up on some hints of implied universalism here and there in their writings. I may devote a post or two later to universalism in Moltmann (it seems fairly explicit in parts of The Coming of God, which I’m reading right now)…  but for now I’d like to share how Barth responded when someone tried to nail him down on this question in April 1962 during a Q&A in Chicago.

Continue reading Why Barth Wasn’t a Universalist (In His Own Words)

Some Jesuses Should be Rejected (Reflections on Love Wins)

Yeah I read it. Finished it about a week ago, but needed some time to chew (not that anyone has been expecting a real blog post, since its been a couple years). Quite a lot of people (many of whom I respect) have been fairly critical and/or dismissive of it. I’ve “overheard” conversations (mostly online) that range from “Did you hear that Rob Bell isn’t a Christian anymore?” to “I’ve known he had fallen into heresy a long time ago.”


It probably didn’t help that Bell seemed evasive when people have tried to “nail him down” on this or that propositional biblical truth during his media blitz. I get it, Rob. Your answer to the “Do you believe in Hell?” question is that you see hell all over the place. And your answer to charges of departure from orthodoxy is that “orthodoxy is a wide diverse stream” with room for differences on things like, say, eternal destinations. Pretty sure today’s “keepers of orthodoxy” aren’t buying that one. Even I cringed in frustration at moments. The FAQ’s on his church’s website were much more direct. 

I’ve personally spent more time in the twitter-blogosphere reading what everyone else thinks about Love Wins than I actually spent reading the book. The conversation has been interesting. But my time actually reading the book was much better spent. I’d much rather read Bell going a bit overboard in the “love of God” department than a lot of the reactionary orthodoxy out there.

So, here goes. My initial reaction: This is the best work that Rob Bell has put out. Brilliant. Love Wins presents the “good news” in a way that could be heard as “good news” by people I care about.  Not because he “compromises truth so as to make Jesus palatable to people on the fringe” (a common thread I hear). More like he paints a picture of God that is beautiful. Attractive. He introduces the reader to a Jesus worth following. With a vision for living that embraces the fullness of God’s purpose and that pushes back against the hellish realities of our world.

That said: Rob Bell would probably make a pretty bad systematic theologian (and I do like systematic theology; call me a nerd). Which makes me glad that he really doesn’t try to be one.  He’s really good at painting word pictures. And telling stories.  Love Wins is filled with both. But in the theology department, Bell majors in deconstructing, not systematizing.

Some of the theology he deconstructs is bad, and needs to be seen for what it is. As he puts poignantly in Love Wins, “Some Jesuses should be rejected.” (p. 9) Not just heretical pictures of Jesus. Also the “Jesuses” of authoritarian religion or abuse or church-sanctioned war and persecution. Mean Jesuses and casual “Jesus-is-my-homeboy” Jesuses. 

On the flip side, some of the theology Bell deconstructs is more or less good, but could use some analyzing, second guessing or re-articulating. This isn’t all bad.  Sometimes even “orthodox” theology paints a pretty poor picture of God. Take the suggestion that “Jesus saves us from God,” which Bell reacts against in the “trailer” for the book. Not an uncommon sentiment, given how the Gospel is often preached. You know, the “bad news, good news” approach, which goes something like this: “You are a sinner and God is holy, therefore respond to Jesus’ sacrifice with faith or else: hell for eternity.”

Wait. Isn’t that the simple Gospel? Isn’t that what substitutionary atonement is all about?  To which Bell might say something like, “Well, sort of. Problem is, when you have to always say it this way, you are telling a pretty poor story about God. Let me tell you a better one.”

Traditional articulations sometimes come off as being about a “God the Father” (the hard-liner) who was really peeved off at our rebellion and sin until Jesus (the “love” part of God) came to save the day. When this happens, not only are we looking at a “poor story,” we’re faced with an inconsistent (and unbiblical) type of God-talk.

Which brings me to (what I perceive to be) the center of any truly Christian theology. And why, with this as my focus, I’m not particularly bothered by Love Wins.  Jesus said “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9). Want to know what God is like? Look at Jesus. Jesus. The center. Our entire understanding of God, framed around what we know of Jesus and his mission. Biblical texts interpreted through Jesus-colored glasses. Life. Human history. Centered on Jesus.

So, any picture of God which tells a story that is incompatible with the love of God poured out through Jesus can use to be reevaluated. No need to get prickly because this reevaluation steps on my toes or doesn’t jive with the story as I’ve heard or told it.

I’m not going to get into where I agree or disagree with Bell point by point (maybe later).  Or the dicey question of whether Bell is a “universalist” (Greg Boyd did a solid job on that question on his blog).  I do share some of the more moderate concerns out there (most recently, this one). Could Rob’s picture of Jesus (and heaven, hell, etc) use evaluating? Certainly. But is he preaching one of those “Jesuses” that should be rejected? I don’t think so. 


I think it more likely that people will encounter the real Jesus —  the Biblical Jesus, the risen Jesus, the welcoming Jesus, the turns-your-world-on-its-head-Jesus — though this book, than will be led in to deception by any of its shortcomings.  


That’s all I got for now. Rob Bell can still be in my club.