I have to be honest, I have never really thought much about the topics of heaven and hell. I tend to want to be a minimalist, to keep it as simple as I possibly can, and that includes my theology: "love God and love your neighbor." Orthodox (whatever that means since "right thinking" is different for each denomination out there and very view topics can the evangelical church actually agree upon - even the "creeds" differ) eschatological theology seems to undo my "simplicity" doctrine. So I have always stayed away from it.
Rob Bell kinda messed that up for me. Being a naturally inquisitive fellow I wanted to know what Arminianism was, or what being a Universalist actually means. So I began to do a little reading, and I mean very little. I am not intellectual or a theologian, my daily struggle is to think about God more than I do about football, so I'm not going to present myself as someone who has all the answers and has thought about this stuff for decades. The first thing I came across was an article about C.S. Lewis -- this is where my research has stalled. . .
Did anybody else know that Lewis smoked no less than 30 cigarettes a day between pipes? That he lived for more than 30 years with a woman who was not his wife? Or that one of his best friends was a homosexual? Most evangelicals today, unfortunately, would reject anyone with that sort of a resume. But when they hear it was C.S. Lewis, they rightly make the decision to look past some of his moral failings.
What if they learned that Lewis had some less than orthodox beliefs about heaven and hell and several other theological questions? Some quite similar to Bell's. We tend to quote Lewis when he affirms our orthodox thinking (once again, not a big fan of the word, who is to say what is "right thinking"). Here is a smattering of some of his thoughts:
On the Bible:
"Naivete, error, contradiction, even wickedness are not removed. The total result is not 'the Word of God' in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God. . ."
"If every good and perfect gift comes from the Father of lights, then all true and edifying writings, whether in Scripture or not, must be in some sense inspired."
Only C.S. Lewis can get away with this level of heresy! A biographer of Lewis' claimed that he did not believe in the infallibility or the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. Whoa. Let's continue. . .
"The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, gives the story in the form of a folktale."
What? This orthodox thinker believed that the creation story was simply that, a story? (Did anybody else know that John Calvin (talk about orthodoxical) questioned the story of Job and believed that it was actually fiction. If we have to throw out Calvin and C.S. Lewis, we will have to get rid of a lot of books. You can rest assured though, Lewis did not believe that the New Testament had any fiction, in his assertion, it was all historical fact.)
About Salvation:
When asked if he had made a "decision" at the time of his conversion, Lewis responded:
"At the time, I felt I was the object rather than the subject."
So it's not just about saying a prayer or making a "decision" to follow Christ?
In the last Narnia book, Susan, a central character is "of her own free will 'no longer a friend of Narnia' [that is, a believer]." This is where Arminian doctrine comes in, C.S. Lewis believed that you could lose your salvation.
The fate of all mankind:
(It is easier here to simply quote directly from one of the
articles I read)
"In the children's Narnia series, the lion Aslan is Lewis's Christ-figure. In The Last Battle deceivers say: "[The god] Tash and Aslan are only two different names for You Know Who." Later they use the hybrid or compound name Tashlan to make their point. At the end of this last book in the Narnia series one of the outsiders, a Calorman named Emeth (which is the transliteration of the Hebrew world for "truth"), who has been a life-long worshiper of Tash, approaches Aslan. To this Tash-server Aslan says, "Son, thou art welcome." Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven."
Now, I understand that some of you may not agree that we can pin Lewis' beliefs down to what he wrote in a children's story, but how many times have we taken what Lewis wrote in the Narnia series and used it to support some of his more orthodox beliefs? Shouldn't we also hold up some of his less than orthodox ones that happen to come from allegory?
I had an acquaintance, and reader of this blog, send me emails and tell my why the authors I have read were heretical. ALL of them. From John Eldridge to Brennan Manning. From Shane Claiborne to Greg Boyd (actually, he never said anything negative about John Perkins, but hey, how could you, the guy is a legend). He wanted to get together and discuss the finer points of systematic theology. I declined, remember my "simplicity" doctrine? If Brennan Manning and Shane Claiborne are showing me a deeper way to love God and love my neighbor then I embrace them. You can add C.S. Lewis to that heretic list too, and I'm fine with it. Actually, I think he would have been too, I'm also pretty sure he would do a decent job defending his "heretical" points of view, as one former student of Lewis' once said, debating him is like "wielding a peashooter against a howitzer."
My biggest question is why we are so afraid to talk about these things? Why do we not want to acknowledge our reservation, or doubts or our fears? When we refuse to acknowledge these questions inside of us and inside of our brothers and sisters we eliminate any sort of grace-filled discussion about the questions that so many of us have but are afraid to bring up, because, hey, we might be treated like Rob Bell. We do such a good job of telling people what we are against, what we don't believe in, who we think are wrong and where all the people who don't agree with us can go, that it overshadows what we should be "for." We should be for people. We should be for affirming our doubt so that we can collectively love Jesus in a deeper way. We should be for Rob Bell as much as we are for C.S. Lewis (or people who ramble off his "orthodox" quotes while ignoring or rejecting his less "orthodox" ones).
Pastors and theologians (actually anybody with a blog) who disagree with Bell have been lambasting him. Would those same people, when given the choice, rather reject Bell and his eschatology, or wash his feet. I think there would be a deep hesitation in the latter. Only one time does Jesus ever give us an "example" (John 13), maybe if we served Bell and others who may be questioning what all of this means rather than condemn, the unbelieving world would actually be able to embrace the Good News of Jesus. Who knows, C.S. Lewis was an atheist until he was 32, maybe some atheist sees our actions and actually becomes one of the evangelical world's greatest theologians.
