Rob Bell, a US megachurch pastor, and renowned speaker and author has set the US evangelical world alight with a controversial book, called “Love Wins” – a look at heaven, hell and the scope of salvation.

The UK reaction seems a little more restrained, but none-the-less the book has prompted the Evangelical Alliance to write a response (and a book review).

One sentence from that statement I find interesting:

It is recognised that there may be strong feelings about Bell’s alleged departure from the majority traditional view that heaven is reserved only for those who profess faith in Christ and, perhaps, for infants who die within the church community before being able to make such a profession.

There are lots of different approaches to the scope of salvation, and I find it surprising that the EA determines that there is a “majority traditional view”.  I might have agreed with that a few years ago, but I suspect that isn’t the case any more.  I suspect that there is still a widespread support for the view of salvation they espouse, but I also suspect there is a growing and vocal call for something wider, more hopeful, and some would say, more Biblical.

Part of the Christian faith and creed is that Jesus Christ is our God and Saviour.  The issue here is: what does is mean for Jesus to be our saviour?  Saviour to who?  And how?  And these are questions that Rob Bell is exploring in his book.  But before discussing Rob Bell’s book, it is worth outlining some (general) positions that people have taken on the scope of salvation…

Pluralism

Essentially this is the idea that there are many roads to God.  Even when two (or more) religions are mutually exclusive, they are equally valid.  This isn’t really on the table for discussion in light of Rob Bell’s books, but I know plenty of people who aren’t Christians who would ascribe to this.

Christian Universalism

This is the belief in the universal reconciliation of all people, through the saving work of Jesus Christ.  It is not only that all can be saved by Christ but that all will.

Evangelical Universalism or Larger Hope

This differs from Christian Universalism in the belief that there is a hell which some people will go to when they die, but they are given a second chance to respond the gospel.  Christ is still Savour and the good news is so good, that eventually hell will be emptied as everyone responds to Christ’s saving work.  This is sometimes called post-mortem salvation.  As universalism has got such a bad press in evangelical circles (one of the first books written about this in the mainstream evangelical world was penned under a pseudonym!) it is sometimes called  “Larger Hope”.

Inclusivism

From a Christian perspective this stance is saying: the Christian story is correct and salvation does come through Christ, but there is the possibility of people of other faiths, no faith, people who not heard the gospel, or can’t understand the gospel, being saved.

While I can’t find anything on this (someone must have written about it – maybe you can help me?), it seems to me there are more hopeful inclusivists and begrudging inclusivists.  The more hopeful variety see that most of the world’s population will be saved, while the more begrudging ones seem to only really allow the faithful in plus a few others, who haven’t heard the gospel or can’t understand it.  (of course, it isn’t as dualistic as this, but this perhaps describes the two ends of the inclusivst spectrum).

Exclusivism

This belief asserts that there is only one road to salvation, and only those who profess faith in Christ will be saved.  Those who don’t accept the good news are condemned hell, which is often seen as an eternal conscious torment.  This is sometimes called restrictivism.  While it is easy to conjure up images of hellfire and brimstone preachers, there are many in this group who wouldn’t hold to such gross presentations of the gospel, while still being exclusive in their view of salvation.

Conditional Immortality and Annihilationism

Alongside these positions, there are some who would hold that hell isn’t eternal, and believe that the soul in hell would be destroyed.  There is a distinction between conditional immortality, where the soul is not immortal, and therefore once separated from God, can’t survive and annihilationism where the soul is immortal, but God destroys all souls that have not been ‘saved’.  In reality the end result is the same: only those who are saved live eternally and everyone else is destroyed.  This view would most commonly be held by inclusivists, but there is no reason why an exclusivist couldn’t hold this view either.

So back to the EA, and their “majority traditional” view: there are a number of different positions that Christians have held over the years, and they broadly fall within the spectrum of the evangelical church (although to be fair some would dispute that).  Some of these are as old as your hat.  Well actually as old as the church!  Furthermore, I am not sure that the EA definition of the scope of salvation is a majority view of Christians.  Scot McKnight, of Jesus Creed blog fame, and Professor of Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago, has said that 75% of his students are (soft) universalists (perhaps Inclusivist or Evangelical with the definitions above).

So here is my question:  which position would you take?  and why?

Nooma seem to capture a mood that communicates to a younger generation, with theological concepts presented so clearly and tackling really relevant subjects.

I have wondered for a while, whether Nooma would work as a kind of pre-Alpha Alpha!  The Alpha Course is brilliant in what it sets out to do.  For people who are really interested in Jesus, it explains so clearly who is he and what following Him might entail.  But what about those people who are interested in spiritual matters, but not necessarily at the point of really wanting to investigate?  And what about the emerging generation who investigating truth isn’t their primary motivation – they are perhaps asking "does it work?" or "does it help me?" or maybe even "does it make the world a better place?".

The students in our church have humoured me in my promotion of Nooma.  Over the summer they have experimented with having a meal together, inviting their friends, watching a Nooma, and talking together.  It seems to be working!  The Christians are loving it, and their friends seem to be too!  It appears as though people are up for talking about spiritual things and even about Jesus, if we can the kind of language that communicates, and the things they are interested in.

If you are interested you can view the whole of the just released Nooma 21, "she" here for the next 48 hours (until end of Friday 22nd).  Looking at feminine images for God, it is brilliant.