An amateur looks at Love Wins

At the end of February a pastor from Michigan named Rob Bell released a promo video for his soon-to-be-released book, Love Wins, and a firestorm of controversy erupted in the online evangelical world. The next month the book came out, and the controversy continued. From the end of February until about mid-April it seemed everything Christianity-related I read online had to do with Bell's book. In a nutshell, Bell's book is (as his subtitle suggests) A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person who Ever Lived. In this book Bell is seen by many as having taken a step toward (if not a canonball-sized plunge into) universalism - the idea that in the end, all people will be saved. Though the controversy is now "old news," I just recently had a chance to read the book, and I wanted to share my thoughts.

When I began reading, I started taking notes on just about every sentence on every page, but I soon realized that this was taking a ridiculous amount of time, and it was completely unnecessary. Many others have posted detailed reviews of this book and have done so much more eloquently and intelligently than I would ever be able to (I can provide links to enough blog posts, articles, and broadcasts to keep you busy for the rest of the calendar year, if you're so inclined). And so, I settled in and finished the book within a couple of days (the book will NOT take you that long if you just sit down and knock it out in one swipe - a couple of hours maybe). I thought I'd provide you with my overall reactions, which could very well be longer than you're willing to read from a nobody like myself.

THE GOOD
Bell's book has forced Christians to examine their theologies about heaven and hell more closely. This is good because often these ideas -- especially hell -- are more or less avoided. Also, Bell emphasizes in parts of his book that we should be careful when we describe heaven as a distant location of wonderfulness where all Baptists (or Calvinists, or Presbyterians, etc.) will someday go, as if it's some pie-in-the-sky place and we're all just waiting around here to die so we can get there. If this is what we believe, we don't have any real obligation to working on problems in our lives on this planet. Also, if we truly believe this, why don't we just all kill ourselves so we can get to heaven sooner?

And unfortunately, that's about it for the good.

THE BAD
Let's see... where to start.

There are many notes I jotted down while reading that won't make their way to this "review," but I'd like to start with the opening pages of Bell's second chapter in which he basically ridicules a painting that his grandmother had hanging in her house while little Rob was growing up. It's a painting that depicts the "cross as a bridge" image that you've probably seen a million times. There's a great chasm with hell at the bottom. On one side of the chasm is humankind, and on the other side is God (often depicted as popular ideas of heaven with shiny streets and angels and harps). The only way from one side to the other is to take the cross-shaped bridge. Bell rails against this image, saying it makes us think heaven is somewhere else that we need to get to, and it's dangerous for us to think in those terms. Ironically, this "artist" (or so he is described by most of his defenders, and perhaps even himself?) doesn't seem to understand that oftentimes paintings are metaphorical. I'm guessing that neither the painter of this image, nor Rob's grandmother, really believe that there is some physical place where we have to go and walk across a cross, and if we don't step carefully we'll fall to our eternal damnation in a fiery furnace. But the image, according to the Bible, is pretty accurate. There is a gap between people and God. A huge gap, called sin, that can never be crossed with anything man-made. The only way to bridge that gap is with the cross of Christ. What's wrong with metaphorical paintings that have assisted missionaries and evangelists for years, Rob?

Bell argues that when Jesus talks about "hell," he uses the word "gehenna," which refers, basically, to the town garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where there was an ongoing fire that consumed the city's trash. He also tells us that when Matthew writes about the sheep and the goats, and that the goats will "go away to eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46), the Greek words there would more accurately be translated "go away to an intense period of pruning." This allows Bell to argue that punishment in hell is only meant to bring people around to Jesus, and that it won't last forever. I'll leave it to other experts to explain to you why Bell must not have done very well in his exegesis classes in seminary, but if you'd like, just read a few good commentaries on these verses and you'll find out that Bell's version just doesn't work. None of the major English translations in existence supports his theory. Is there a Western-world conspiracy that wants everyone to believe Hell is forever, Rob? Or is it possible that your lone voice is the one that's mistaken?

Kevin DeYoung's review of Bell's book goes into much more detail about this point, but I did notice that sin, for Rob, seems to be almost exclusively about horizontal injustices. He regularly talks about rape and war and oppression and abuse and other things people to do other people. Flowing from this is Rob's insistence that "hell" is what we experience here on earth because of these sins. "Hell" is finding out your daughter has been repeatedly sexually abused over the years by a relative. "Hell" is the teenagers in Africa who have had their limbs cut off in the midst of civil unrest.  Missing from his theology seems to be any notion of the idea that sin is also against God. It's vertical. And it must be atoned for. That is what Jesus' death did. Bell's theologies of sin, hell, and especially his Christology are sorely lacking.

When the Love Wins promo video was released, the big controversial question was, "Is Rob Bell a universalist?" After reading this book, I would say that although Bell tends to be as slippery as an eel, and does his best to avoid any single label, "universalist" in any meaningful sense of the term seems fairly accurate. Bell does emphatically say that Jesus is THE ONLY way, but then he says that anywhere people find hope and forgiveness - that's Jesus. No matter your beliefs, Bell seems to think that if you have some bit of joy, hope, forgiveness (or any other touchy-feely abstract noun) in your life, that's Jesus, and so even though you didn't know that's what its name was, you've been saved by Jesus. Some might call this inclusivism instead of universalism. Perhaps that's more accurate, but it seems like a semantic battle now. For all practical purposes, Bell is quite a few paces down Universalist Road. A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but calling my bike a rose won't make it so.

Sometimes I wonder if Bell understands syntax when it comes to sentences. He LOVES John 3:16. I guess I should say, he LOVES John 3:16a: "For God so loved the world that he gave is only begotten son..." but that's where the love stops. Bell even describes that part as "beautiful." But, he argues, "millions have been taught that if they don't believe..." and then he launches into a rant about how God instantly becomes a vindictive monster to people who don't believe. I wonder if Bell has read the rest of the verse and chooses to ignore it, of if he just never got that far. To help him out, it goes like this: "...that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." The inverse of the argument isn't true, Rob? Maybe he thinks there's an omitted part that says, "...and whoever does NOT believe in Him will also not perish, but have eternal life -- because we here at Bible Writers, Incorporated are very open and loving and affirming, and it'd be unloving of us to deny anyone eternal life."

In Bell's paradigm, I honestly see very little need for evangelism and missions within the Christian faith. In fact, the one time I remember Bell mentioning missions, it's only say that he hears stories all the time about missionaries who tell the stories of Jesus, and the native peoples say, "That's Jesus? But we've been telling those stories for years" (again confirming my "pretty close to universalism" beliefs about Bell). Bell talks about the importance of following God in this life, but the reasons for it seem to be mostly, "because it's just better, and you'll feel more fulfilled." It feels like someone trying to convince me to cheer for the Steelers, because they win a lot of Super Bowls, and they're a well-run franchise that doesn't disappoint nearly as often as other teams, so I'll just enjoy football more if I convert. Unfortunately, I enjoy being a Cowboys fan, and since, in the end, it doesn't really matter what I choose (I'll always be able to change my mind after I die when I realize that the Steelers really were the better team), I'll stick with my 'Boys. I'm enjoying it just fine. It reads to me like Bell basically says, "Jesus is NOT the mean judgmental guy you hear about from the Westboro Baptist Church weirdos. Now that you are aware of that, I can't really give you a solid reason why you need to follow him right now. Just keep him in the back of your mind so that when you die and it comes time for you to change your mind, you won't have to be 'pruned' for very long before you realize Jesus is the right way."

My last point: None of this would be that big of a deal if Rob Bell were truly just seeking answers and trying to provoke thought, but he's teaching this stuff to millions of followers. He preaches at a megachurch, he writes very popular books, and he speaks at conferences and gives interviews around the world. His influence is huge, and that's why this is important to combat. Bell loves to play the "I'm just a pastor" card, but when we're talking about millions who look to you as a spiritual advisor in their lives, false teaching carries some dire consequences.

I understand that this post reads largely as some rant against a guy I don't like, and I'm sorry for that. But, honestly, I've never had a real problem with Bell before I read this book (I thought he might be slightly "out there" regarding a few things he's said and written, but I didn't have a problem for the most part with what he and his church has been teaching to tons of people). Now that's changed.

Read Kevin DeYoung's lengthy review for the most thorough exposition of the flaws in Bell's book.

Sin is DOOMED

"Look at [Romans] chapter eight, verses one through four. Paul says, 'Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do, in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemns sin in sinful man in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.' What the law couldn't do God did. Through Christ, sin is doomed. God sent Christ to this earth not just as a revolutionary, he did not send Christ to this earth just as some sort of a religious leader, God did not send Christ to this earth as a great man or as an example for us or to answer the question WWJD - What Would Jesus Do - no, that's not why Christ came to this earth. Christ came to this earth as a sacrifice for sin and when my savior died - when my savior died - when he was crushed, when he was cursed, when he was beaten, when he was bleeding, in that darkest hour at Calvary, sin was doomed, sin was condemned, and at that very moment when it seemed like Satan had his foot on Christ's neck and was in control, it was at that very moment that the back of sin was broken."

Pastor Dan Schoepf

The Prodigal Son

The Prodigal Son is my favorite of Jesus’ parables. It always has been. I think it’s the picture of the father disgracing himself as he runs down the road to meet his bonehead of a son while he’s still “a long way off” that I love.

Even though that’s the part of the story that I love so much, I think if I was a character in the story I’d be the older brother. You know, the one who gets all upset because his bonehead of a brother is getting a party thrown for him even though he’s been a complete jerk. I’m just like the older brother in a lot of troubling ways. I’ve never gone through a real rebellion of any kind in which I acted out against God or my family. In fact, I’ve pretty much followed the rules my whole life and never really gotten myself into too much trouble at all. That’s not the troubling part, though.

What I don’t like is that I think the older brother in the story has a valid point. I totally identify with him. He’s been good and obedient his whole life. He didn’t defy his father, waste his wealth, or make any super stupid choices. He just worked hard and wanted to know why he didn’t get a party every once in awhile. “C’mon, dad,” he’s saying, “This brother of mine treated you like dirt and now we’re having our very own Mardi Gras for him. I’ve treated you with nothing but loyalty and respect and I get nothing.” (New Revised Jake Version)

Then dad says, “Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.”

The father’s response stirs two things in me: First, the father is pleased that the older brother has stayed with him. He even reminds the brother that everything the father has is also his. Second, the older brother seems to have forgotten (or never fully realized) how magnificent it is when one who is lost comes home. In fact, it’s even more than being lost and found; it’s that one was dead and is now alive.

In a lot of ways I completely take for granted the blessings that the Father has given to me. Somewhere in my subconscious it’s like I’m waiting for the really obvious blessings (like winning the lottery [an extra-special blessing since I don't play], getting a good job, getting to see my family more often, etc.) and I forget that I’m living them. Also, like the older brother I have come to minimize the excitement and importance that surrounds the acceptance of the Lord into the life of a non-believer.

I hope that if Jesus’ story kept going it would end like this: “The older brother then understood the importance of his brother’s homecoming. He went into the house to get his freak on with the rest of the party guests. Who knew fattened calf tasted so good!”

McLaren and me (not quite as catchy as McGee & Me)

I'm nearing the end of reading A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. I've never really written a book review before, and you're kidding yourself if that's what you think this is... but I thought I'd share some first impressions and thoughts about what I've read so far.

I chose to read this particular book on the emergent church because a) I already own it & it's just been sitting on my shelf for more than a year now, and 2) from what I've heard and read it's been touted as the definitive manifesto for today's emergent church (can "definitive" and "emergent church" be together in one sentence and not be an oxymoron?), and so I figured that if I'm going to graduate from an evangelical seminary there might be some people I come across in whatever ministry God points me to who assume I know something about the emergent church and I'd like not to disappoint them. So here we go.

First of all let me say that McLaren is an engaging writer, and it's not at all hard for me to see how he's published a dozen+ books, most of which sell quite well. He has a clear passion to move Christianity beyond liberal vs. conservative bickering, and his viewpoint largely seems to have grown out of a reaction to ultra-right wing conservative fundamentalist Christians who you're likely to see on television a lot (not often being painted in a positive light at all).

As is made clear in McLaren's subtitle (visible in the above picture), his desire is to essentially take the best from all of the pockets of Christianity and mold them into a kind of open-minded, tolerant community of believers who follow the teachings of Jesus. In multiple places throughout the book McLaren tells his audience that it's important to stick to the fundamentals of the faith, which he clearly defines as loving God, and loving your neighbor (with everyone on the planet falling to the "neighbor" category). One of the big problems he has with many Christians today is that they've expanded the fundamentals to include things like the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, and penal substitutionary atonement. McLaren, however, seems to believe that if we simply love God and love other people then Christianity is much more likely to connect to our postmodern culture, and we will be able to take the world for Christ.

If I were to summarize McLaren's position as I understand it (I'm about 80% of the way through the book) I would say that he believes that following the teachings of Jesus is what's most important (and primarily the love God & others command), and therefore we need to love everyone, be in community with everyone, let the Holy Spirit guide our direction through experience, and be pacifists (or at least pacifist sympathizers with the hope and goal of bringing the world to a place where everyone is a pacifist). On the flip side he would argue that we need to grow out of our in/out theology where there are some who are "in" or "born again" who are going to heaven and everyone else is "out" and therefore going to hell. McLaren relates a story in which his college-age son admits that he's struggling spiritually. He goes on, "Dad, if Christianity is true then nearly everyone I love is going to be tortured in the fires of hell forever. And if it's not true, then life has no meaning. I just wish there were a better option." McLaren tells us that when he heard his son say those things his heart broke as he realized that that is the picture of Christianity his son, and probably most Christians, have. It seems that the goal of this book is largely to correct such thinking.

From what I've learned about the emergent church before and outside of reading this book, McLaren's theology and teachings in A Generous Orthodoxy are very much represtentative of them.

And it's too bad.

Completely lacking from McLaren's theology is anything about the harder parts of the Bible. The only time I have come across the word "atonement" in the whole book is when, as I mentioned above, he is pointing out how conservative evangelicals have broadened the definition of "fundamentals" to include it. I do think McLaren's right about a lot of things: The Christianity that most people see on television which says you must vote republican, fight against gun control laws, homosexuality, and abortion, support wars, and tell all your non-Christian friends that they're going to hell is probably not what Jesus meant when he sent his disciples out as witnesses, but McLaren's theology, I believe, could accurately be described as dangerous, bordering on devastating. The Gospel message is NOT, as McLaren would apparently have you believe, that we can all get along in a God-loving community if we stick to the teachings of Jesus. It's that Jesus was crucified in your place on the cross as a sacrifice for sin and that he rose again the third day, conquering death forever. Why doesn't the emergent church ever want to get into the hard stuff? I'm guessing that in all his books, you'll never hear McLaren talk about the reality of sin and its impact on the human race (unless it's the "sin" of intolerance, which creates an unappealing "in vs. out" mentality).

In fact, it seems to me that if Jesus never was crucified or resurrected or if he never ascended to heaven... McLaren's theology would not be threatened at all. Without the atonement Jesus was still a good teacher who gave us good standards to live by, so let's all focus on those and try to get along.

(When I bring my book to work with me, my coworker will ask, "Is McLaren annoying you yet?" For the first almost half of the book my answer was, "Not really." As it's become clearer and clearer that his bottom line is essentially, "Let's all be nice to each other," my answer has changed. There is real truth, Mr. McLaren.)

Keith Green: Servant of the Living God

I'm a big Keith Green fan. I don't think he's generally considered "the norm" for what music my generation appreciates, but his lyrics blow me away (even the 50th or 60th time I hear/read/sing them), and when I hear him sing and play the piano (beautifully!) I can tell how much love he had for his Lord. In every song he sings it's as if he might never get a chance to sing it again.

Green was killed in a plane crash in 1982 at the age of just 28. I know it's probably not the most theologically responsible thing to assert (and I'm a seminary student to boot!), and I'm not sure where this idea came from, but I think someone suggested to me once that maybe Keith just longed to be with his heavenly father so much that God thought that was a good idea. You can read more about Keith Green and the ministries that have stemmed from his story here. I would also encourage you to Youtube some of his songs (or get them from iTunes or whatever, just listen to them).

And for those of you who have always wondered why my blog is called "Rushing Wind," I've reproduced Green's lyrics to one of my favorite songs.

Rushing wind blow through this temple

Blowing out the dust within

Come and breathe your breath upon me

I've been born again

Holy Spirit, I surrender

Take me where you want to go

Plant me by your living waters

Plant me deep so I can grow

Jesus, you're the one who set my spirit free

Use me, Lord, glorify your Holy name through me

Separate me from this world, Lord

Sanctify my life for you

Daily change me to your image

Help me bear good fruit

Every day your drawing closer

Trials come to test my faith

But when all is said and done, Lord

You know, it's been worth the wait

Jesus, you're the one who set my spirit free

Use me, Lord, glorify your Holy name through me

Rushing wind blow through this temple

Blowing out the dust within

Come and breathe your breath upon me

I've been born again

Hiking

My wife's pretty cool.

Elizabeth and I have been hiking every chance we get, and since we're still pretty new to the area, we tend to choose different parks or different trails almost every time.  Today we were fortunate to have selected a rather magnificent little stretch, and had a fantastic hike.  Along the way, I came to a realization that's been months in the making.  While I tend to get most excited about grand scenic views and big-picture atmosphere of nature, Elizabeth is much more likely to enjoy the little detailed bits of creation.  I like getting to the top of a hill and looking out over the mountains and valleys and rivers and lakes.  I like trying to see how deep into the woods my eyes can look.  She gets a thrill when she spots colorful wildflowers, or when even the smallest of butterflies comes to rest alongside our path.  She pauses frequently to admire the budding pinecones on the trees, or to point out the goofy looking insect that she almost stepped on.  Hiking with Elizabeth is rather refreshing.  I think we both add a little something to the other's experience, and in turn, we each get a slightly fuller picture of our omnipotent creator.

(note: the late post is the result of me not being able to sleep, and my blog winning the debate between writing and reading yesterday's TIME magazine)