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.

Humpty Dumpty... sorta

The more nerd-like of you might really enjoy THIS.

(Pam, you're the one I have most in mind.)

Shadows

The Bible reminds us over and over that our world is only a shadow of that which is to come (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 10:1; Psalm 144:3-4; Psalm 102:11; Ecclesiastes 6:12). But what does that mean? Well, shadows can be crisp or they can be fuzzy. They distort the characteristics of the item casting them (they may be taller or wider, etc.). Shadows require a light source to exist. Shadows convey hints of the real -- but they are not the real thing. You cannot grab hold of one. And despite what Disney's Peter Pan has taught us, you cannot manipulate one with a needle and thread (or a bar of soap, for that matter).

One of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis, emphasizes this concept in some of his writings. In a chapter called "Hope" from Mere Christianity Lewis describes heaven as the place we were originally created for. "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." He suggests that earthly pleasures do not, and were never intended to, fully satisfy these desires; they merely "arouse" them, and "suggest the real thing." That is, this world is only a shadow of that which is to come!

This idea is more clearly conveyed in Lewis's allegory The Great Divorce. In his "dream" the narrator stepped off the bus in heaven and "had the sense of being in a larger space, perhaps even a larger sort of space, than I had ever known before: as if the sky were further off and the extent of the green plain wider than they could be on this little ball of earth." As he continues to notice things about where he is, he finds it to be "solider" and more real than our world. Against the backdrop of this solid place, humans look like ghosts or phantoms. They're transparent. They're distorted. The grass does not bend under their feet, nor are they able to lift even a small leaf or bend a flower's stem.

These pictures of heaven, while probably not literally accurate (at least not entirely), serve to help us wrap our minds around the scriptural idea that this fallen world is only a glimpse of the reality of God.

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." James 1:17 (TNIV)

Something to check out

A few weeks ago I blogged about my take on reading Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy. Well, the jist of what I was trying to say regarding not just McLaren's, but many "emergent" or "progressive" evangelical's theology was explained very well in THIS post by Greg Gilbert of the 9 Marks Church Matters blog. It's a bit lengthier than what I said, but it's interesting, true, and well-worth the read!

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.)

Mark Driscoll and Southern Baptists

Check out this blog post from Tim Ellsworth on the Southern Baptist Convention and some of its attendees being mad at pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle's Mars Hill Church.

Ironically, Driscoll is one of the most theologically conservative preachers I think I've ever listened to. And he does preach the gospel very well. It's a good post. Read it.

International Conference on Historic Premillennialism

The sessions from Denver Seminary's International Conference on Historic Premillennialism are now available to stream or download. All of the presentations are worth a listen, but I would especially recommend listening to Dr. Blomberg's three talks in which he presents the case for Historic Premillennialism against its three main competitors within evangelicalism: Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Dispensational Premillennialism. If none of those words make sense to you, make sure you start with Blomberg's first talk because you'll get a brief introduction to what in the world this stuff is even about. After each session the presenter took questions from the audience, and that was interesting too (I'm assuming they are included in the recordings, but I haven't checked to make sure yet).

There are seven sessions in all:

Plenary Speech 1: Dr. Craig Blomberg

"Why We Don't Have to Wait for the Great Commission to be Fulfilled Before Christ Returns: The Problems with Postmillennialism"

Session 1: Dr. Sung Wook Chung

"Who are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11: An Integration of Western and Asian Proposals"

Session 2: Dr. Bruce Demarest

"What Did the Early Church Believe About the Tribulation?"

Session 3: Dr. Rick Hess

"The Seventy Sevens of Daniel 9: A Time Table for the Future?"

Session 4: Dr. Andrew Dearman

"Transformations of Jerusalem in the Bible"

Plenary Speech 2: Dr. Craig Blomberg

"The Need for a Millennium Beyond This Present Age: The Anticlimax of Amillennialism"

Plenary Speech 3: Gary Hoag (Delivered for an ailing Dr. Craig Blomberg)

"Inappropriately Privileging Israel: Why Historic Premillennialism Trumps Dispensationalism"

Blomberg lectures will be available soon!

For those of you who have been dying to hear Dr. Blomberg lecture ever since I started posting about him, you're in luck.

This weekend I'm attending a conference on campus on Historic Premillennialism, at which Dr. Blomberg is the plenary speaker (he's giving three lectures over a couple of days). The whole conference is being audio-recorded and will be posted on the Denver Seminary website at some point next week. When it's there I'll let you know where to find it.

Now, I understand that you'd have to be especially nerdy to listen to three 1.5-hour lectures on historic premillennialism (many of you probably don't even know what that means... but the first lecture will explain it to you -- I didn't really know until after that), let alone four other lectures from people you've never heard of. But if you ARE interested, it'll be available for you.

That's all.