Has Rob Bell "saved" God?

On reading the feature article in the recent 'TIME' (Is Hell Dead?, Apr. 25) on Pastor Rob Bell's influence in re-thinking the Hell concept, it brought back memories of my last debate with a churchman, in January of 1983 in Barbados. My opponent was an ordained Anglican priest and after a full one hour of heady debate, we finally reached the bugabear notion of Hell. I went first, marshalling a furious defense of atheism and a withering attack on the fact Christians had to resort to playing the fear card to get anyone on board. For the coup'de grace I introduced famed philosopher Bertrand Russell's words from his marvelous book, Why I am Not A Christian
:
"Hell is Religion's source of terror, and in dignifying it Religion has institutionalized fear"

I then awaited the reply of the Anglican cleric, which almost knocked me for six, to use the Bajan expression:

"But we don't do that! In our essential theology - that of the Anglican Church and Anglican Union- all people eventually are enfolded in the Divine Being. We call this teaching 'Universalism'.

It took me several minutes to collect my senses since, of course, I'd never heard of it before. We had to wait until after the debate, which concluded in the next ten minutes, for me to sort it out using probing questions. A number of those in attendance remained behind in the small Anglican church to hear the discussion.

My first question to him was an obvious one: if this was an official doctrine of the Anglican church then why wasn't it more widely known?

He responded that it could have been but the common lay people didn't want to hear it. They preferred the easier to comprehend version of "heaven and hell" which satisfied their human prejudice and longing for "justice". So, he replied: "We have to give them what they want, wrong though it is, because otherwise they'd join the fundamentalists who do teach this!"

My second question was more personal, I asked him how he felt about having to conceal the actual teaching doctrine of his church to instead feed his parishioners the 'heaven-hell' codswallop. His answer again was somewhat surprising:

"I humbly accept that as part of my duty and hope that some day, one day, ordinary people will be developed enough mentally and spiritually to accept the more profound truth. But as we know, even Christ Jesus had two sets of teachings, those in simple parables for the ordinary folk of his day. And the secret teachings intended only for the select few disciples."

My last question was why did he think Universalism as a doctrine was so critical. He replied:

"That's the easiest! Without it, God is a failure! His whole creation, especially of humans, was all for naught if most are damned or even a significant percentage. He could as well have not created anything and preserved perfect nothingness."

The last part has formed an ongoing philosophical project and question of mine ever since. One which any intelligent or inquiring mind must ask, just as Leibniz first did
:
"WHY must there be something as opposed to nothing?"

Think about this: If "nothing" be the simpler state, in which an invisible deity could still exist as "spirit" then why create a universe at all? Why go through the effort? Especially one which would be fraught with violence, despair, "sin" and all the rest. Also, one which an ominiscient deity would have to know (IF it was judgmental) that it would have to condemn billions before he even created them.

This itself makes the act of creation an act of violence against those created, who would not be able (for whatever reason, including where they were born) to live up to its standards, or gain 'saving' knowledge, say for a poor Hindu in Delhi. Thus, we would have to question on an a fortiori basis any judgmental deity that created the cosmos. It could not have good will at its core, since it would know its act would condemn billions before its creation even began. Hence, it would be a pre-meditative sadist!

Leibniz himself used two premises: 1) the principle of sufficient reason, and 2) an a priori argument from simplicity for the presupposition that - spontaneously - the universe feature nothing contingent at all, because the Null universe (nothingness) is the most natural of all.

As he put it
:

"the great principle of sufficient reason holds that nothing takes place without sufficient reason...a reason (or condition) to determine why it is thus and not otherwise"

But again, why would a sufficient reason be to simply create something which He already knew would have to be destroyed, as in most of humanity dispatched to eternal perdition? It made no sense! Well let me rephrase that: it would make eminent sense to a cosseted, parochial-minded religious zealot who embraced spiritual apartheid and the conviction that salvation's path must be narrow and exclusive, never broad. But then if an infinite love is postulated to be part of the Divinity, how or why would it be so petulant and inferior-minded to let a little paltry unbelief serve as a conviction yardstick? Obviously, such a petulant being was man-made, not divine!

Let us also bear in mind that if an all perfect Being already existed, it would have no need to create at all. It would ALREADY be complete, perfect, self-sufficient and non-contingent. In effect, by creating it really adds something (universe) to itself - so it cannot be "infinite" in the true sense, unless it and the universe are one and the same. Worse, it adds imperfection to itself so it is no longer perfect. (If one argues the universe is a separate creation from the deity, then one is saying the deity is not infinite, since an extra additive exists to delimit it.)

Thus, Leibniz solved his conundrum by reverting to the Null hypothesis: that there ought to be nothing rather than something. But the external evidence points to something, and hence this 'something' is unexpected from the Principle of sufficient reason. Therefore, the actual existence of this something cries out for an explanation.

Hence, it is the job of the deity believer to explain why there is this actual existence in addition to positing his God. This also underscores his principle of sufficient reason to account for why we have something rather than nothing. Or to put it another way
:

Why wasn't `nothing' (no creation- ab initio perfect "Being") good enough for the creative force or deity?

Why perform an act of creation that renders it imperfect?(Since if "omniscient" or assigned such attribute, it would have had to know before all time that it would create those it would later have to destroy?

Obviously, the Anglican cleric and his church thought carefully about these issues which was why they arrived at the doctrine of Universalism. Obviously also, others like former Episcopal Bishop Shelby Sponge and Pastor Rob Bell have also thought of them. Bell's take is more interesting, since as the 'TIME' piece observes, it has been crafted out of a background replete with Elmer Gantry -style Hell mongers: the Fundamentalist Christian extreme right. So how or why did Bell risk all by trying to expand the umbrella of Divine love for salvation though he had to know he'd be crucified by his lesser-minded and less intelligent cohort for it?

I can only conclude he did it on the same basis as the Anglican cleric: If it was true that all but a few humans would be damned for eternity, then for all practical purposes the Divine creation project was an abject failure. Worse, the failure signified not a perfect, or omniscient Being but a very defective one. Maybe not even a real God at all! I mean, even a lousy architect that cuts corners with his building project (say in exchanging quality materials for cheaper ones, like quality drywall for the Chinese imitation laden with lead, etc.) HAS to know there will be adverse consequences! It is stupid to claim he won't or that he isn't responsible! Of course he is! He chose to go on with a project he knew was a failure

How much more then, the accountability for a "Supreme" Being presumed to be OMNISCIENT or knowing everything that will transpire before it even happens! This character doesn't even have the limited knowledge excuse (for absolute fact of outcome) of the crappy architect! In fact, he's a billion times worse than the architect for even allowing his "project" to get off the ground when he knew the failure rate (or "non-salvation" rate in fundie parlance) would be next to 99.99999%. THAT is failure by any definition!

Rob Bell, as an obviously intelligent pastor saw this problem - I've no doubt he did- and understood that sooner or later many intelligent lay people would see it as well. (Mayhap even from reading this blog, whose hits average is now approaching 10,000 /month). Thus, Bell used the fundamental precept of Divine love to attempt to extend the Divine "arms" beyond the tiny limits proposed by his fellow fundies. For that, he merits kudos and congratulations. Not because he's opposing stupid beliefs that have no logical basis (see my earlier logical disproofs of Hell) but because he has the courage to think for himself, see a serious theological problem and attempt to resolve it, instead of being a passive, unthinking and uncritical sheep. In this sense, Rob Bell may have "saved" God for any remaining faithful. Not from any any foolish hell, but from being consigned as a permanently useless concept devoid of even basic rationality or sense.