Jesse A. Schroeder

First, the name of Chan's book, "Erasing Hell," says a lot to me. Rob Bell wrote a book about "Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived." His book is not just about hell. But when Chan writes a response, he focuses on Bell's depiction of hell. There is no response to Bell's understanding of heaven or the afterlife in general. 

In my opinion, this reflects a serious flaw in Evangelica theology, namely focusing on God's judgment rather than God's grace. If our starting point is the reality and danger of hell, then our theology will be constructed around avoiding this punishment. When hell is the catalyst for faith, the result could be living and believing "just enough" so that I am "safe." For many years, I've answered questions from students where the bottom line is, "Would I go to hell for that?" 

Furthermore, I think that focusing on hell reflects a broader contemporary cultural fix. Phrases like, "I'll see you in hell," or "Go to hell" are very common. We have a general understanding that bad people are punished in hell. In my opinion, "Erasing Hell" only furthers this misconception of God's kingdom. God's relationship with humanity does not start with a threat of eternal punishment, but rather with an open invitation to partake in the divine life. Our theology must start with God's unconditional love, constant pursuit of humanity, and patient kindness. This is what makes the Christian God unique, compelling, and transformative. As Paul says it Romans, "It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance." In my opinion, simply by naming the book "Erasing Hell," Chan and Sprinkle betray that they are focusing and emphasizing the wrong things, both in Bell's book and in their theology in general. 

The second, very important point, that I wanted to mention in this final post is Sprinkle's explanation of first century Jewish understanding of hell. In chapter two, Sprinkle and Chan offer a more historically accurate picture of Jesus, specifically the theological context of first century Judaism. They state, "Jesus was a first-century Jew, so we need to leave behind all our Jesuses that have been refashioned and reshaped by our own cultural biases" (pg. 49). Right on! This is a worthy task, but one that is far more difficult that Sprinkle and Chan allow for in their book. Furthermore, they look at primarily one collection of sources that offers a very distorted picture of first century Judaism.

In a footnote, Sprinkle explains that "this chapter is going to dig into the wild and complicated world of Second Temple Judaism...using the translations and dates of the Jewish literature from...[the Pseudepigrapha]...the Apocrypha...[and] the Dead Sea Scrolls" (pg. 63). It is great to see Evangelicals using this sources to expand their understanding of Jesus' religious and social context. However, I don't feel that Sprinkle does an appropriate job communicating just how deeply complicated this literature is! Second Temple Judaism is a very complex time, filled with various religious and social factions of Jews and Gentiles. Literature from these sources (the Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Apocrypha) are extremely complex, multi-layered, and far from representative of the culture as a whole. The reason these sources are extant is because they were preserved by extremist factions of scribes, such as the Essenes. These men were not your typical Jew. They lived in secluded communities, dedicated their lives to copying and preserving texts, and still, only single copies of these manuscripts have remained, and many of them have a very small percentage that can be read because of deterioration. 

Furthermore, Evangelical Christians would hardly take the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Apocrypha to be authoritative! But Sprinkle and Chan quote these texts in their book as if  they are quoting Scripture, which in my opinion is misleading and poor scholarship. Sprinkle quotes writings such as 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, 4 Maccabees and others that I can't even tell from Sprinkles abbreviations!! (for example, L.A.B. or Ascen.) The reader can find these sources by looking carefully at the endnotes, but they are not clearly cited within the chapter, and I don't feel that Sprinkle does a fair job explaining to the reader exactly who these sources are. To say that quotes from the Pseudepigrapha are representative of the beliefs of Jews in the first century is to say that a quote from a Tea Party member is representative of Americans in the 21st Century. 

This is not to say that by looking at apocryphal literature cannot expand our understanding of Judaism. Rather, this literature shows us the complexity, nuance and polarization of beliefs about the afterlife, the kingdom of God, and the reign of the messiah. But Sprinkle and Chan do not use the quotes referring to hell in this way. They pick and choose a small selection of quotes from a wide variety of very difficult, apocryphal texts, and hold them up as proof that Jesus believed in hell. Frankly, this is poor scholarship. 

I know that I have significantly criticized "Erasing Hell." On a positive note, the book is a simple and concise summary of what some Evangelicals and some Christians have believed about hell for many years. However, the thing to keep in mind is that "Erasing Hell" is one perspective, one approach, and on understanding of hell. Even Sprinkle himself admits that he is uncertain as to whether or not hell is eternal or temporary. He says that the biblical witness is complex, and perhaps there is reason to believe that hell will not last forever. What a confession and an indication that the topic of hell is not a "case closed" situation. 

In the end, as always, we have a choice. What will we choose to believe about God, heaven and hell? We always have a choice - to believe in a God that loves unconditionally and will stop at nothing to achieve the redemption of the world, or a God who is constrained by self-imposed judgments and relies upon eternal punishment of the sort that disgusts even evil humans. Our choice matters, because it determines how we will live and how we will love. Do we love God for saving us from hell, or for bringing us into the divine life? Do we love other people because we don't want them to burn forever, or because we believe that the fullest expression of the kingdom of God is one that includes all people? 

These are important questions, and this choice is very important. More than anything, I think its important to realize that we do have a choice. We do not have to be constrained by our own theology, locked into our old ways of understanding heaven and hell. I appreciate Bell's work because he throws open the windows and the doors of the church and says, "Look! There is more out there! Look at the possibilities!" 

We have a choice, and I choose to believe in the possibilities of God, including the possibility that all heaven and earth will one day be redeemed.