How do we talk about heaven and hell?

Even before Rob Bell’s book Love Wins came out a year ago, it had sparked a firestorm of controversy online over what Christians should believe about the afterlife. The clashing perspectives are all interesting in their own right, but the atmosphere in American Evangelicalism that created such a perfect storm is perhaps the most interesting dynamic of all.

I recognize that a number of variables contributed to the furor over Bell’s book – conviction and sincerity being undeniable on both sides of the “battle lines.” But two variables can be observed universally.

First, there is the matter of hermeneutics. No matter how much noise evangelicals make over the “clear reading of scripture,” the fact that an interpretive schema is being employed is utterly unavoidable. Strict literal Biblicism needs to be defended just as rigorously as more nuanced ways of interpreting scripture. So when Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell has the subtitle of “What God Said About Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up,” you can be sure he is bringing a number of assumptions along with him as he unpacks what “God said.” Although he appears humble as he wrings his hands in the trailer for his book, he fervently believes he can know exactly what God says about the fate of other human beings. I don’t mean to question his sincerity – that is not something anyone could take issue with – but rather his hermeneutic.

Of course there are proof texts for this sort of interpretation of scripture, but there are also proof texts for other interpretations as well. And ultimately, one’s hermeneutic scaffolding will affect how one deals with both proof texts and problem texts. So while there has been much discussion on the appropriate understanding of scripture in regard to the afterlife, the lack of care in defending interpretive paradigms leaves a notable vacuum in the conversation.

Second, there is the issue of subculture identity. It is no secret that it can be difficult to separate American Evangelicals from the subculture they have erected around themselves. This brings up a question: Was the outcry against Rob’s book primarily over “universalism,” or did it stem from some sense of betrayal? There is no doubt that Rob’s theology played a key part in the uproar, but is a doctrinal difference important enough to warrant the response that followed, and even preceded, the release of his book?

In this situation, a comparison to C. S. Lewis seems fitting. It’s no secret (well, maybe it is for some) that Lewis was never very “evangelical” on a number of doctrines – exclusivity being one of them. Near the end of The Last Battle, a character is “saved” by Aslan, even though he explicitly renounced Aslan by name and confessed to follow Tash, the satanic figure in the story. And The Great Divorce certainly does not present “evangelical hell,” with eternal conscious torment and no hope after death for those who fail to “confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord” before their demise. The “damned” get what they want. The line between hell and purgatory is blurred in a fantastic way.  And yet Lewis is regarded by many evangelicals as one of the most important Christian thinkers of the 20^th century, despite a very non-evangelical view of the afterlife.

Which brings us back to Robbie. What makes him different from Lewis? Perhaps it has as much to do with his cultural background as it does with doctrine. Lewis is the exemplary Christian from the world of academia – and he came from England, across the pond. Evangelicals are just happy to get someone – anyone – with those credentials. Rob, on the other hand, grew up in the American Evangelical church. He began his ministry in the American Evangelical church. He looks like an evangelic; he talks like an evangelical. But he doesn’t fall in line doctrinally. Lewis is expected to be a bit of an odd duckling, but Rob is a product of American Evangelicalism in all its glory. There are different standards for those “inside” the ivory towers. So his doctrinal departure is judged by a different standard than Lewis’s.

What do you think? Is it possible that subculture identity plays a significant role in declarations of “heresy?”

What aspect of the “debate” over the afterlife do you find most intriguing?