Jesse A. Schroeder

First, its important to note that this book is written by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle. In fact, it's mostly written by Sprinkle, as Chan admits in the introduction, "Truth be told, the majority of research was done by Preston." In my opinion, Chan writes some of the opening paragraphs of each chapter, and Sprinkle's research and exegesis makes up most of the content. It also seems that Chan wrote the last chapter. It might seem that I am making a big deal out of nothing, but I think this is really important. Chan states he has the same convictions as Sprinkle, but this is primarily an exegetical book written by Preston Sprinkle with Chan's "stamp of approval" in the form of his name as co-author. For some folks, this may not be an issue, but I think it's important to know who is writing a book because the authorship influences the words and the content. I don't know Sprinkle or his work well enough to say more than that. 

Second, this book is clearly a response to Rob Bell's book, Love Wins. The subtitle is "what God said about eternity, and the things we've made up," but it would be more appropriately subtitled "A Response to Rob Bell's, Love Wins," or if the publishers wanted to be a bit snippy, it could be "what God said, and what Rob Bell made up." Throughout the book, Sprinkle responds to a few modern evangelical theologians who advocate Universalism, namely Thomas Talbott and Gregory MacDonald. Interestingly, Clark Pinnock, one of the most influential evangelical in the area of Christian Universalism, is never referenced. Far more than any other text (other than the Bible), Sprinkle refers again and again to Love Wins and quotes it at length. 

Again, while the authors say this is a book about "eternity," it is actually a direct response to what Love Wins says about eternity. In my opinion, there is a difference, and this difference is important. Francis Chan is a very well-respected evangelical author and pastor. When he chooses to write a book in direct response to Rob Bell, this gives Rob Bell's name a different "feel" in evangelical conversations, specifically a very bad feel. To put it simply, Chan (who everyone knows is right) says that Bell (who was previously just known as "that NOOMA guy") is wrong. The result is that more evangelicals begin to think that Bell is "wrong"or "dangerous," and if you are someone who agrees with Bell, you are also wrong and "in danger." This is very different from Bell writing a book about heaven and hell, and Chan writing a book about heaven and hell, that happen to have a different perspectives. 

Something similar happened with the emergent movement. Multiple authors began writing books about how they understood postmodern Christianity. Other authors disagreed, and wrote books in direct response, clearly stating that they thought emergent authors were wrong, most notably D. A. Carson's "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" and DeYoung and Kluck's "Why We're Not Emergent by Two Guys Who Should Be." The result of these two books that were written with the direct purpose of stating the flaws in emergent theology was that "emergent" got a bad name in evangelical circles. The same thing is happening with Rob Bell and Love Wins. 

Ironically, many people only read the books that say the other guys is wrong. In the same way that many people didn't read emergent authors, but only read why emergent authors were wrong, many evangelicals will only read Chan's book and conclude that Rob Bell is wrong. This is unfair. If you are going to read a response, you must first read the book to which the response is being written. 

This is why I disagree with the Chan and Sprinkle's choice of format and their decision to respond directly to Bell. If their book simply talked about the doctrine of hell, it would not be necessary to read Bell's book. But because the book is essentially an argument against Bell, one must read Bell to be fair - but most people will not take the time to do this. The result is that Rob Bell's name is demeaned in Christian circles, and he is seen as somehow "less than evangelical" (whatever that means).

Third, some general comments about the book. While initially, it may feel like a more "academic" book, "Erasing Hell" is actually a much lighter read that "Love Wins." I read Erasing Hell in about two hours. The arguments are very simple; the Scripture verses are very familiar, and the book is very short. Not counting the introduction, the appendix and the final pages (which are an excerpt from Chan's other book), this book is 130 pgs, many of which are endnotes within each chapter. In my opinion, this book is little more than an essay about hell, written by Sprinkle, with some comments by Chan. Frankly, I was disappointed. 

Fourth, I have some serious problems with the rhetoric employed by the authors. Chan/Sprinkle emphasize two points about all else: First, God can do whatever God wants, and second, the issue of hell is crucially important because it impacts the eternal destiny of real people. I do not disagree with either of these points. However, the way in which these points are used throughout the book are, in my opinion, manipulative and dangerous. For example, Chan/Sprinkle say, 

"God...has every right to do, as the psalmist says, 'whatever He pleases' (Ps. 115:3). God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases." (pg. 17). 

Again, I agree. But then Chan/Sprinkle presume to write a book telling the reader what God does. For example, in the Preface, they state, "Read the Scriptures we've quoted as truth directly from the mouth of God." (pg. 12) If Chan/Sprinkle were only quoting Scripture, this would be no problem. But, they quote Scripture and then interpret and explain it. The authors are not telling us what God says. They are telling us what they understand Scripture to mean when it quotes God, as it pertains to heaven and hell. 

This is very dangerous rhetoric. To claim that God can say and do whatever God pleases is like a big trump card laid on the conversation. But the authors are not honest with the readers; they refrain from admitting that what follows is simply their best understanding of Scripture. Nevertheless, again and again throughout the book, they remind the reader that while they may not like the idea of hell, it is what God says, and so we don't have a choice in the matter. In my opinion, this is manipulative and dangerous. 

A similar technique is employed by emphasizing the eternal consequences. Several times throughout the book, the authors write about the serious nature of the topic of hell. I believe they have the best intentions, and I appreciate what they are saying. For example, chapter 3 starts with one of the authors talking about writing while sitting in Starbucks, and the dozens of people who are around him who might be going to hell! The author says, 

What frustrates me about this writing technique is that it subtly implies that those who disagree with this position on hell do not take the issue seriously. However, Rob Bell states the exact opposite in Love Wins: 

and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously." (pg. 79)

All Christians would agree that the issue of hell is important, and to "get it wrong" has drastic implications. But just as some say ignoring hell will lead to eternal damnation, preaching a message that includes eternal damnation leads to feeling "guilt and fear and the terrifying, haunting, ominous voice that whispers over your should, 'You're not doing enough.'" (Love Wins, pg. 182).

Getting hell "wrong," in either direction, leads to bad results, bad theology, and "bad Christians." 

Again, I don't disagree with the initial points that Chan/Sprinkle say (eg., God can do as God pleases, and the topic of hell is important). Rather, I disagree with their use of these points to convince the reader that their interpretation of Scripture is the only right interpretation. 

I was hoping for more from Erasing Hell. As I said, I respect Francis Chan in both his ministry and his writing. However, Erasing Hell feels rushed, manipulative, and theologically weak. If I was comparing Love Wins and Erasing Hell by using an analogy, I would say that Erasing Hell is like a "Dagwood Sandwich" - it just piles on more meat, more toppings, more bread in order to try as hard as possible to make an argument, all the while making the sandwich less and less appealing. The Christianity portrayed in Erasing Hell is very unappetizing to me. 

In contrast, Love Wins is like a 4oz. filet mignon. Small. Simple. At first, unimpressive. Really? That's it? But when you take the first bite, you realize there is a myriad of flavors, a complex reality going on that hits you in many different ways. To me, that Christianity is very appetizing. 

_______________