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. 

_______________

The book is written in Bell's now notorious style: conversational, short sentences, lots of spaces, more like a blog post than a book. It is not an academic book; there are no footnotes, very few references to theological big names past or present, and Bell rarely even offers the exact Biblical reference. Rather, he'll say something like, "In John 3 Jesus tells a man..." When I first started reading the book, I was a little disappointed, and thought that it wasn't Bell's best work. 

He begins by asking some of the questions that surround heaven and hell, questions that most people are afraid to ask. Like pulling on a loose thread in a hand-knit sweater, Bell keeps tugging, searching, questioning, showing that our tightly-knit theological doctrines have more than a few holes. For example: 

"So demons believe,

It's a book of responses to these questions." (pgs. 18-19). 

The most common and basic accusation against Bell is that he is not "Scriptural." However, you can see even from this short selection, that he is looking at Scripture. But he correctly points out that the Bible presents a myriad of stories and descriptions about heaven, hell, salvation and sin. Bell's book is full of Scripture, and initially he tries to show that the Bible is far from clear on these issues, and if we are really honest, we have a lot of difficult questions to answer. 

So Bell moves forward, trying to paint a better picture of heaven and hell. This is a bold task, and one that Bell attempts all the while employing his casual, conversational tone. So, in some places the book feels thin and lacking support. But, in short, Bell is trying to help Christians think differently about heaven and hell. He isn't necessarily refuting or rejecting the evangelical doctrines, but rather trying to broaden our vision of the future so that our lives can really be changed in the present. He states, 

"It's very common to hear talk about heaven framed in terms of who 'gets in' or how to 'get in.' What we find Jesus teaching, over and over and over again, is that he's interested in our hearts being transformed, so that we can actually handle heaven." (pg. 50)

And again, 

"Eternal life is less about a kind of time that starts when we die, and more about a quality and vitality of life lived now in connection with God." (pg. 59)

In my opinion, these are far from controversial statements. These are necessary and helpful corrections to doctrines that can quickly get out of control. However, some of the strongest responses haven't come against what Bell says about heaven, but rather what he says about hell. Again, Bell tries to take on the giant task of reframing an entire theology, in one short chapter. He cites all the verses in the Bible that use the word "Hades" or "Hell" explicitly, and he explains how these words have complex meanings. Most importantly, he reminds us that our concept of "hell" cannot be read backwards onto Scripture. 

One of Bell's major points is that Hell is a current reality. Again, he is trying to broaden our vision of the issues, and in my opinion, this is necessary for modern American Christians. Death, famine, war, and abuse are every day realities for people around the world, but these are far away concepts for Americans. What Americans are familiar with are things like depression, suicide, sexual abuse, addiction, divorce and death. But rarely do we allow the full weight and severity of these realities enter our church doors. Church is a happy place, a place where we ignore the hells in the world around us and the world inside of us. 

But Bell doesn't stop there. He uses Scriptural stories, from Jesus, to more fully explain the concept of hell and punishment. But he does this in a way that is not simplistic or childish. For example, using the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, he states (about the Rich Man): 

"He's alive in death, but in profound torment, because he's living with the realities of not properly dying the kind of death that actually leads a person into the only kind of life that's worth living...How do you communicate a truth that complex and multilayered? You (meaning, Jesus) tell a nuanced shocking story about a rich man and a poor man...Brilliant, just brilliant." (pg. 77)

To accuse Bell of not being Scriptural is not accurate. Rather, he is reading and using Scripture in a very different way. Not just a different interpretation of verses, but his understanding of what Jesus was doing when he was teaching is very different. Most of Bell's opponents read Scripture looking to piece together a tight theology, a scientific encyclopedia that has all the answers. Bell reads the words of Jesus, and he sees a "brilliant" teacher, who is telling transformative stories that are true on a level that goes beyond scientific fact. Bell clearly has the utmost respect for Scripture and the teachings of Jesus, and I found myself learning a great deal from his exegeses, as well as being challenged to transform how I live. 

I started by saying that I didn't think Love Wins in Bell's best work. However, as I got past the midway point, I found myself strongly resonating with what Bell was writing. I found myself agreeing on almost all of his points, but more than just agreeing, my soul was responding with a deep yes. After the two chapters on heaven and hell, Bell's writing really hits a stride, and each page is filled with beautiful explanations of the words of Jesus. His chapter "There Are Rocks Everywhere" is a simple, provocative and compelling argument for Christian Inclusivism, and when he concludes with the chapter "The Good News Is Better Than That," Bell brings all of the issues home to a personal level, dealing with self-mutilation, abuse, jealousy, misconceptions about God, and finally summing up the love of God the words of Scripture, "You are always with me, and everything I have is yours."

For me, this is a Christianity I can really believe in, that I can share with my atheist friends, that can change the world." For me, I find myself thinking, "Finally, someone is putting together all the ideas and inclinations about God and faith that I've been feeling for so many years." Bell states on pg. 135, 

Me. I would. I've felt that way for years. 

Bell continues, 

In short, I think that Bell gets the Christian story - on a grand scale - very right, and I wish that more Christians would read his work, not just from a perspective interest for the sake of conversation at dinner parties, but for the sake of changing the way they are living now. As Bell says at the end of his book, 

"Whatever you've been told about the end -

today." (pg. 197)

____________