Heaven, Hell and Everything in Between

Rob Bell recently published a book titled, Love Wins.  The book deals with Christian notions of heaven and hell and specifically the idea that traditional Christian concepts of hell aren't really all that important.  From the brief media appearances I've seen of him talking about his book it seems Bell's point is that, in the end, God's act of redeeming the world cannot fail and so the concept of hell should take a back seat to much more important theological concepts (like God's love for the world).  I haven't read the book yet, and I'm not sure that I will, but what's made this book so controversial is that Rob Bell is a pastor of the evangelical, 10,000 member, Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI.  Evangelicals aren't known for cozying up to ideas that even approach the theological territory of universalism.  The odd part (though perhaps not surprising) is that Bell isn't espousing universalism and while I might be called a universalist, that's not really at all what his book makes me think about.

I don't remember the first time I posed the "what happens when I die?" question to my parents.  Hell wasn't really a topic of conversation at home or in church and heaven always hung as this background fixture in the ambiance of sermons or Sunday school lessons.  It just wasn't a topic my church or my life seemed to care that much about. Instead the recent media frenzy over Bell's book makes me think about the fact that in different places and at different times Christianity is and has been very different.

What is it about Christianity that makes different denominations and conglomerations of Christians so terribly concerned with doctrinal orthodoxy?  What is so important about retaining this orthodoxy?  Perhaps the sense of inclusion and identity is important for some.  For others, maybe, it's about feeling in control of some aspect of our knowledge of god.  To be honest, I couldn't say.  As a lifelong holder of unorthodox and unpopular ideas I'm not sure what it is about difference that concerns people so much and I'm not sure what it is about unpopular theological ideas that so threatens the very fabric of Christianity.  If all of this is an issue of identity then I think it would be prudent to begin by at least acknowledging the fact that the various forms and expressions of Christianity throughout the world are different enough to warrant their own parking space in the list of world religions.

It's interesting to me though because many of us (especially those in the ecumenical movement) are enamored with the idea of unity.  We can accept that Christianity is different and the myriad expressions of it so long as we still get to call it all Christianity (I guess, because, what else would we call it?).  And I think there are some positives to this.  I think it allows us to accept what different denominations and groups have contributed to Christian faith over its history.  It prevents different groups from dismissing each other outright even if it doesn't prevent them from disagreeing and condemning each other.  In the end, it reminds us to be in dialogue with one another.

And yet, clinging to this notion that we can still claim some unified piece of the religious landscape creates problems for me.  At the very least I find it a tad disingenuous (while we might all claim Jesus as foundational to the faith, we definitely don't agree what that means).  At worst it continues to prevent the majority of Christianity from accepting those elements of our faith that are indebted to other religious traditions in the world.  It's like we keep telling ourselves that Christianity is just so unique and thus, just so right.  Perhaps this is all just semantics in the end but I really do think that being able to be honest about the reality that Christian theology can be varied enough to effectively function as different religions is important.  Perhaps it could teach us how to celebrate difference rather than hide from it.