New Movie on Hell--"Hellbound?"

There's a new movie on hell coming out this Fall...

It's a documentary and includes such people as: Brian McLaren, Bob Larson, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Driscoll, Greg Boyd, Peter Kreeft, and Frank Schaeffer.  It also includes someone called "Oderus Urungus" who is billed as a vocalist from "Gwar"--he looks as weird as his name (he's the "guy" on the right; guy on the left is Dee Synder).

You can check out trailer for the movie and comments from director on the official website: Hellboundthemovie.

History and Hell: Why We Will See the Controversy Again

Rob Bell is only the latest to question the traditional evangelical understanding of hell as eternal, conscious torment.  There have been others and there will more in the future.  Robert Morey in his book Death and the Afterlife (Bethany House, 1984) provides some insightful analysis on this topic:

There is a discernible historical cycle to the Christian Church's attitude toward the doctrine of hell.  The cycle begins with a long period of time during which it is acknowledged that the Scriptures clearly teach the intermediate and eternal punishment of the wicked.  It is assumed by all that this was and always shall be the doctrinal position of historic Christianity.

After acknowledgment comes indifference.  The "negative side" of the gospel in which sinners are warned to "escape" and "flee" from "the wrath to come" (Matt. 23:23; Luke 3:7) is ignored and often downplayed, while the "positive side" of God's love in Christ is overemphasized to the exclusion of anything else.  The doctrine of hell is acknowledged to be true but rarely preached.

After indifference comes ignorance.  Because the biblical theme of God's judgment is ignored, the people in the pew do not know why they are expected to believe in hell.  There is no instruction given on the subject, and the issue is avoided because no one wants to be characterized as a "hell-fire and brimstone" preacher.

After ignorance comes doubt.  Since no one is told why he should believe that there really is a hell, doubts begin to creep into people's minds.  It becomes fashionable to speak of the doctrine of hell as being "unkind," "unloving," or "negative."

After doubt comes denial.  The cults are quick to put forth either Universalism or annihilationism as the answer to the "horrible" doctrine of hell.  Many books are published and distributed which directly attack the orthodox position.  Since orthodox teachers have not instructed their people on the subject, the Universalists and annihilationists succeed in convincing many people and generating controversy in many churches.

After denial comes irritation.  When the pressure from the Universalists and annihilationists is first felt by orthodox theologians, they respond by saying or thinking, "I don't have time to deal with this issue right now," "Wasn't this issue solved one hundred years ago?" or "If we ignore them, maybe they will go away."

After irritation comes affirmation.  When the Universalists and  annihilationists don't go away but multiply drastically, the orthodox theologians take up the defense of historic Christianity and demonstrate that the Bible does indeed teach the doctrine of eternal punishment.  God's people are once again instructed as to why they should believe that there is a hell to shun and a heaven to gain.  The subject is preached and taught with boldness.  The Universalists and annihiliationists are thoroughly discredited and refuted.

After affirmation comes acknowledgment.  The Christian church reaffirms its historic position, and it is universally acknowledged that the Scriptures do teach the intermediate and eternal, conscious torment of the wicked.  The controversy passes and the church returns to its dogmatic slumbers.

Then the cycle starts all over again!  After a long period of acknowledgement, indifference will set in and the other phases will follow.  (pp. 15-16)

We would, of course, be in error to see the above as some sort of iron-clad, cyclical view of history.  There is, however, enough truth in Morey's words to be aware of this historical dynamic.  This cycle can be played out in the larger Church, individual denominations, local churches, and even in an individual's life.  Add to this the aspect of the internet and other social media and it is possible we may see a shortening of the cycles due to the fact that error can take on new life and blaze across cyberspace very quickly.

John Stott, Rob Bell, and the Controversy on Hell

Rob Bell's Love Wins has caused a bit of controversy in the evangelical church.  There a number of unique dynamics to what has recently happened in this particular controversy.  Doug Wilson, in a video blog (here) drew attention to the fact that the evangelical community has had denials of certain aspects of hell within its ranks for a time.  He specifically mentions John Stott.  Wilson mentions that we shouldn't get all up in arms about Bell while forgetting Stott.  Because Stott is a well-known pastor and exegete it is, to use Wilson's words, "not so easy to get up a head of steam in attacking John Stott."  What Wilson says is true to some extent but I think he fails to recognize the differences.  Stott brought out his "tentative" annihilationism in 1988 with his dialogue with David Edwards in the book Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (IVP, 1988).  This was a part of the book and not the whole book's discussion.  After this disclosure from Stott there were a number of responses to him.  Many of these appeared in books dealing with doctrine of hell and they specifically dealt with Stott's presentation.  For example, the following books all intereacted with Stott's presentation and took him to task for failing to uphold the notion of eternal, conscious torment of the wicked:

Crucial Questions About Hell by Ajith Fernando (Crossway, 1991).

The Other Side of the Good News: Confronting Contemporary Challenges to Jesus' Teaching on Hell by Larry Dixon (Bridgepoint, 1992).

Let the Nations Be Glad: The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper (Baker, 1993).  In this book Piper interacts with Stott and even provides background between his and Stott's personal exchanges on this issue.

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert A. Peterson (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995.

There were also more scholastic articles specifically addressed to Stott's arguments.  For example:

"Dr. John Stott on Hell" by Robert L. Reymond in Presbyterion 16/1 (1990), pp. 41-59.  Dr. Stott replied, briefly, in the next edition: "A Response to Professor Robert L. Reymond" 16/2 (1990), pp. 127-128. 

"A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism" by Robert A. Peterson in JETS 37/4 (December 1994), pp. 553-568.

The point to all this is that the evangelical community did respond to John Stott's presentation of hell.  This was done in a manner that was consistent with Stott's original presentation.  Stott's presentation came out in a dialogue in a book that, although is was semi-popular in level, did not have a huge marketing campaign behind it.  Rob Bell, on the other hand, marketed his book to the widest possible audience possible and there was a slick marketing campaign to garner controversy and sell the book.

What is interesting to me is how social media was used to promote the book and respond to the book.  Tim Challies in a recent blog (here) speaks to this issue of social media and the promotion/response to Bell's book.  Challies argues, to a certain extent, that "we were gamed"--meaning that the avalanche of Reformed responses on blogs and other social media actually helped generate sales for the book.  Challies is not denying that some sort of response was needed.  He wonders if there could have been a better response.  Many of Challies' thoughts are appropriate as we wrestle through how to use the modern media to respond to challenges to the faith.  It is interesting that when this latest challenge to standard evangelical belief came forward from within the ranks of "evangelicalism" it was met with appropriate resistance--in the same manner that Stott was in the early 90's.  Bell sought to use the modern social media to push his views and the response to those same views came in the same arena.  The blogosphere erupted in response and, even granting Challies' concerns, this was good.  The first line of defense came from on-line bloggers with theological savvy (i.e., Kevin DeYoung).  Had the evangelical community waited to "warm-up the printing presses" more damage could have been done.  Admittedly, as Challies points out, the quick response ramped up the controversy but this may not necessarily be all bad.  Rob Bell is an influential person and people do imbibe his teaching.  They need to be warned.  Furthermore, the evangelical church needs to continued to be reminded that some things are worth fighting for and the edges of the evangelical movement can only be stretched so far before one parts company with historic evangelicalism.

Controversy and apologetics in the blogosphere will obviously continue to be needed.  Hopefully we can learn lessons from this recent skirmish and face the next controversy with the needed speed and wisdom.