Why Rehash Old Debates?

I would hazard to guess most Lutheran folks didn't and probably don't know who Rob Bell is.  If they had no clue, they might have gotten a little inkling when he published a book entitled Love Wins.  In it, apparently, Bell wrestles with the question of how a loving God can banish people to hell for an eternity.  I'm going to stop right there because I haven't read the book.  I can't say that I will read the book.  Honestly, I have no desire to read the book.  Why?

For several reasons.

Bell's book has somewhat reignited an old debate in Christianity: universalism.  Universalism is defined as the understanding that all people will (eventually) be saved.  The rational is: an all-loving God who displayed such radical love by sending Jesus to die on the cross cannot bear to see one of His children suffering for eternity, and God will give that person chance after chance after chance to be redeemed until he/she is finally saved.

Such a stance resolves dissonance within those who cannot see God having any sort of vengeful nature.

But I refuse to enter this debate.

It's an old one.

It's been hashed and rehashed, just like many of the arguments in Christianity.

Why do you think there are so many churches and denominations around?

We argue over doctrine, convince ourselves we are right, and then we break away to form a new church/denomination, proud of ourselves for "standing up for what is right."

Now, I recognize there is a time and a place for such action.  After all, I am Lutheran.  The Lutheran church was born out of such a split over doctrine.  Is salvation based upon works, grace, or a combination of the two?  We Lutherans came down squarely in the GRACE ALONE camp.  Other denominations followed suit.  Do I think we Lutherans have it right?  Yes.  I do.

But I know the Bible well enough to know that I could construct an argument for both of the other positions as well.  Without any difficulty.

Just as I could construct an argument from scripture showing God does indeed condemn some to hell.  Or, I could construct an argument that God will save all. 

In our "infinite" wisdom, we human beings like to think we are covering new ground when it comes to human relationships and our relationship to God.  We like to think we are making new discoveries all the time.  But we are delusional.  If one digs through history, philosophy, and theology, one will see evidence of such argumentation long before we delved into it. 

But we like to think since technology has rapidly moved forward, we as humans have done just as much progression in our relationships.  I'd argue to the contrary.

Still, we like to rehash old arguments.  For some reason, we think they are supremely important, and I wonder why.

Do we feel the need to justify ourselves?

Do we feel the need to belong to organizations and surround ourselves with people who agree exactly as we do?

Do we feel the need to convince others of our rightness and show them the error of their ways?

Are we convinced that if we don't persuade others to our point of view they will suffer eternal damnation?

What ever happened to simply proclaiming the good news of Christ and bearing witness to His love through word and deed?

And does it really matter?  Does getting into a heated argument with someone who disagrees with you on a theological/philosophical point worth it?  Is it worth the anger?  Is it worth the frustration?  Is it worth losing a relationship that one has with a fellow brother or sister in Christ?

After all, when it comes to that final judgment, who are we responsible for?  Are we responsible for what our neighbors' believe and have done?  Or are we responsible for what we believe and have done?  Are we going to be asked what Rob Bell believes?  Are we going to be asked what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America believes?  Are we going to be asked what Pastor Haug believes?

I'm pretty sure we will be held accountable for our own beliefs and our own actions.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

And if God chooses to ask me why I stood with people and with organizations who I fundamentally disagreed with and who committed actions that I didn't approve of, I hope I have the ability to say to Him, "Well, you stuck with me, didn't you?"