Rob Bell & The Atonement
Rob Bell
One of the main questions I have been asked about the book is, What does Rob Bell believe about the atonement? It’s a fair question. The atonement is a really huge doctrine and vital to our faith. In chapter 5 “Dying to Live,” Bell asks numerous questions about how one views and speaks about Christ’s atonement.
Bell questions the relevance of talking about Jesus’ death in sacrificial terms. We, in the 21st century West, do not sacrifice animals, as Bell states,
Just the thought of such practices and rituals is repulsive. So primitive and barbaric. Not to mention unnecessary. It doesn’t even cross our minds to sacrifice animals (p. 62 on NookColor).
We don’t sacrifice animals. Thus, according to Bell, the idea of Christ’s sacrificial death does not make sense to us, and the analogy is irrelevant. However, for the early Christians (most of which come out of Judaism), the analogy of sacrifice is a proper way of explaining the theology of Christ’s death. If the authors were living today, they wouldn’t use sacrificial language.
Bell shares a verse from Hebrews 9 that suggests that Christ’s death is the end of the sacrificial system. But, later, Bell also quotes Colossians 1 which claims that God was reconciling the world through Jesus. So, Bell asks,
So when Jesus died on the cross,
Was it the end of the sacrificial system
or was it the reconciling of all things (p. 64 on NookColor)?
Rob Bell points out that the New Testament also talks about Jesus’ death paying the price to free guilty sinners, and also that Jesus’ death wins the battle over death, and Ephesians states that we have redemption through Christ’s blood. Thus, he summarizes this tension with a question,
Is the cross about the end of the sacrificial system
or a broken relationship that’s been reconciled
or a guilty defendant who’s been set free
or a battle that’s been won
or the redeeming of something that was lost?
Which is it?
Which perspective is the right one? Which metaphor is correct? Which explanation is true?
The answer, of course, is yes (p. 64 on NC).
Bell gathers metaphors in the New Testament about Christ’s atonement and states that all are proper ways of explaining what happened on the cross. This is not a problem but simply,
What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in their own language their listeners would understand (p. 65 on NC).
I’ve heard multiple criticisms of Love Wins that suggest that Rob Bell does not believe in the theology of the atonement. Now, my question to those critics would be, Which one? Which theology of the atonement?
"Christus Victor" (late fifth or early sixth-century), mosaic, Chapel of the Archbishop, Ravenna. Under Christ's feet you see the lion and the serpent, enemies mentioned in Psalm 91:13 -- a sign of victory.
There are three main views of the atonement — substitutionary atonement (i.e., Jesus took your place on the cross), the moral exemplar view (i.e., Christ’s death was a moral example for us), and Christus Victor (i.e., Christ’s death won victory over sin and death). Generally, evangelicals have adopted the first; mainliners, the second; and the Eastern Orthodox, the third (I know others have adopted these views, but, for sake of the argument, let’s draw these generalizations). So, which one does Rob Bell believe?
It appears Bell would lean towards the third one - Christus Victor - which is becoming an increasingly more popular view amongst evangelicals (e.g., N.T. Wright, Greg Boyd), when he says,
For the first thousand years or so of church history, the metaphor of victory in battle, Jesus conquering death, was the central, dominate understanding of the cross. And then at other times and in other places, other explanations have been more heavily emphasized (p. 65 on NC).
However, he also continues,
To elevate one over the others, to insist that there’s a “correct” or “right” one, is to miss the brilliant creative work these first Christians were doing when they used these images and metaphors (p. 65 on NC).
For Rob Bell, the theology of the atonement is multi-faceted. All of the tension in the New Testament around the work of Christ’s death is brilliant, creative, and beneficial. I imagine that when evangelicals state that Bell denies the theology of the atonement they are saying, “He denies my theology of the atonement, the way I look at the atonement of Christ.” In one sense, I would say, yes, that’s true. Bell doesn’t believe in your theology of the atonement. He believes all three (or more) are beneficial to understanding what happened on Good Friday, and not just beneficial but necessary.
Would Bell deny substitutionary atonement as a necessary way to look at the atonement? It doesn’t appear so. Would he reject the idea that it’s the only way to look at it? Most certainly, yes.
I don’t bring this up to say that I agree with Rob Bell on everything he says. In fact, I don’t, but I would like to point out that it’s just not as easy to say, “Well, he denies the substitutionary atonement of Christ,” and then write him off. It’s just not…that…easy. I would like to say it is. I would like to say that there is no tension in Scripture about the atonement, but there is, and Bell does well to point it out to his readers.
Doug Campbell’s idea of Paul’s atonement theory is that it is martyrological - that Jesus died in fidelity to his mission, that his martyr’s death, like that of the martyrs in 2 Maccabees, is a expiatory, cleansing the community and actually accomplishing the victory over the enemy. Thats how Paul can fill up what is lacking in it, because it incorporates the moral exemplar view: we do what Jesus does in each new mission field, we give up our lives in fidelity to our mission, which is Christ’s mission - victory over sin and death. It’s not adding to the atonement because we do it “in Christ.” It ends up being a catch-all atonement theory that shows how a number of atonement images work together. It’s not meant to be a systematic doctrine, just a teaching device, but I think it helps put some of the atonement images together without sacrificing Evangelical commitments.
Your conclusion is that Rob Bell believes more in the atonement because he mishmashes several views together? Really. How naive. Ever seen a kid pick at his food? Its because the child likes none of it, thats why a little this and a little that. Its not that Rob believes more, but because he believes little and hasn’t found the right combination to express his view.
Don’t you just love post-modern thinking?…nothing is to be received until “I” have re-filtered it and determined this is the ‘right’ explanation.
Others of us have also watched Rob Bell, and I for one don’t draw the same conclusions about his atonement, his gospel or his negation of hell.
N. T Wright and his attack on imputed righteousness, and Greg Boyd and his heretical open theism….just what do you want to call sound teaching Evan? If you want to go with these men for the sake of ‘feeling unified’ then your unity will be the open door to injecting error into mainstream evangelical teaching. Are you a wall or a door?
Is there some others that you feel are being mistreated who hold abhorrent teachings that you need your readers to ‘feel’ for?
Its just a comment, you need’nt respond. Im not here to beat down your views, I just don’t agree with them.
Marvin, I don’t believe this is naive. I simply believe this is a valid opinion. Does Christus Victor have to negate substitutionary atonement? I don’t think it has to. Christus Victor is a historical Christian view and substitution came about later but is still valid. I don’t think it is as easy as your kid-and-food analogy. The Church is bigger than my own views.
As far as my view on unity, it appears to me that Scripture is very concerned about unity in the Church. If we want truth, we are going to have to hold on to unity, as well. Paul gets really upset with those breaking unity and is really passionate about the truth, but he never says, “Hold to unity unless someone goes against the truth.” So, I have no problem stating that I disagree with Boyd’s open theism, but I also have no problem saying that he is a Christian brother.
Im sure not against unity. In fact I am all for unity and that is why I hold Boyd and Bell as factious, they are creating disunity by abhorrent teachings. Its not the whistle blower that has created the disunity, but those who commit the foul.
Im not attempting to over-simplify the views of Rob Bell, Im suggesting that unless Rob Bell changes course I expect to see him like Brian Maclaren. Brian flopped like a dead fish from one side to another and many couldnt understand where he was coming from. but, Brian was full of heretical teachings all pushed out in question-assertion/ fiction books. Eventually he gave us a little minisystematic that sealed his relation to the Church as a full blown heretic. Bell in my opinion is just a few books away from doing that too.
Its mute to talk about ‘brotherhood’ with the heretical. Because unless they seek to silence themselves and renounce error they will only wax worse and worse.
Its just as factious to admit to your home and your congregation the heretical when those learned and orthodox leaders condemn his teachings. There is a consensus out there about Maclaren and there will be about Bell too. My hope is that Bell renounces his errors and like the atheist who see’s God is real, will experience the correction of God and be made a viable fruitbearing Christian.
My take is from a very rigid adherence to biblical truth. When those among us decide that we are all wet and righteousness by faith is wrong or that Jesus is not God or that salvation is to be had by everyone eventually, I have no qualms about kicking such teachers to the curb and letting others know that I have done so and they should too.
Marvin,
My only question here is, have you read Love Wins? Is there anything specific that you are “hung up” on?
Hello Evan: I have read love wins.
As I see it, the major premise behind “love wins” is
Rob Bell says that God cannot be glorified by the eternal punishment of sinners.
God is a failure if not everyone is reconciled to him.
So, as I stated in an earlier post Rob poisons the well because these assertions are put in question form. The answer Rob gives for the remainder of the book is NO God cannot be glorified by the eternal punishment of sinners and NO God would be a failure if everyone is not reconciled to him.
Then of course he runs down the road of reconciliation outside of belief in Christ.
You realize that as soon as you reconcile people to God outside of Christ youve dismissed ouright or done severe damage to……
Righteousness by faith
Sanctification
Justification
The Atonement (all theories)
Christ’s mission from the Father
Regeneration of the Holy Spirit
Conversion of the sinner
So what part of Rob Bell’s teaching leaves any part of the New Covenant in tact?
Probably very little.
All of this, no matter which way you slice it is error and to be denounced.
Maybe Rob will read Chan’s book and get his head straight. Im going to get Chan’s book and see how he handles the issue. Chan’s book is a rebuttal to love wins and everyone knows it. Hopefully Francis will be of benefit to Rob Bell..
Thanks for entertaining my replies especially since they are divergent from yours and since they are a sharp rebuke to Rob Bell. Im a little surprised you let them remain.
Thanks for this, Marvin. I appreciate your viewpoints, even though I would disagree. I hope you check out Chan’s book. I thought it was pretty good, and I posted about it here if you want to read what I wrote.
re: “Thanks for entertaining my replies especially since they are divergent from yours and since they are a sharp rebuke to Rob Bell. Im a little surprised you let them remain.”
–No problem. I believe the Church needs your voice, and I would only hide your comments if you were being condescending or outright mean. I didn’t interpret you to be so. I hope God blesses you in your endeavors, and please check out my blog again soon.