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.

A couple of items to note

I think using manners is important, and I'm thankful that I grew up with parents who made me use them. It seems that truly polite people are tougher to come by these days. That's why I was glad to read Some Guy's blog post on Being Socially Responsible. His list of social responsibilities includes "say please, thank you, and you're welcome" as well as "hold doors open for others."

Also, I thought that some of you (particularly Joel & Pam, who have both academic and vocational interests in church worship) might want to check out Kevin DeYoung's two-part post on Ten Principles for Church Singing (Part 1 here, Part 2 here).

That's all I've got for you for now.

Nearing the End

In case you've been hiding under a rock for a few weeks, I will likely never see any of you again because the end of the world is Saturday.

I don't know how you plan to spend your last few days before the apocalypse, but I plan to spend mine reading stuff on the internet. Therefore, I thought you might appreciate checking out a 5-part series from W. Robert Godfrey of Westminster Seminary in California on some of the history and development of Harold Camping, the man behind the "May 21st is Judgment Day" campaign. It's really 1 decent-sized blog post split up into five entries. It won't take you long.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Are any of you going to stock up on bottled water and a CB radio in preparation?

For listening and watching

I lived in Des Moines for about five months with a college friend of mine while I was engaged. While I was there my friend and I attended Lutheran Church of Hope off and on. I came across two videos they posted on facebook from their Easter service last weekend, and I wanted to share them with you (can't embed them, so I have to make you click on the links).

The first is probably my new favorite video/song, and you can check it out HERE.

The second is of Simon Estes, a world-renowned singer, performing one of my long-time favorites, "Were You There?"

An interesting story

Don Harper Mills, in a speech to the American Association for Forensic Sciences, related the following story (which I found HERE) about one of the most bizarre and legally complicated suicides ever heard of (trust me, this is an entertaining story).

On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun. Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten story building with the intent to commit suicide. (He left a note indicating his despondency.) As he passed the 9th floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers, and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this... 

Ordinarily a person who starts into motion the events with a suicide intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide, but the fact that his suicide intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands... 

Further investigation led to the discovery that the room on the 9th floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife, and the pellets went through the window, striking the decedent. 

When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded... 

But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son's financial support, and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus... 

Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by a shotgun blast through a 9th story window. 

The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.

Now before you run off and tell this story to all your friends, I should mention that Don Harper Mills made this story up. This suicide did not, in fact, happen. It's still a very amusing story, in my opinion. Did you think so?

Confounded Logic

Over the last month I've come across a number of stories and articles related to the issue of abortion. All of them made me scratch my head a little bit regarding the logic of our culture (especially the "pro-choice" political position). I thought I'd mention each article and then make some of my own comments.

In January I learned of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his filthy, disgusting, horrific abortion operation that he had been running in Philadelphia since 1979.

Also last month a Christian friend of mine linked to some of his top blog posts of 2010. His #1 post of the year had to do with his views on abortion. While my friend considers himself "pro-life," he believes that the practice of abortion should remain legal. In reference to Roe v. Wade he writes, "...we have forgotten that one of the primary reasons for legalizing abortion was to put an end to the then common and extremely dangerous practice of 'back-ally' abortions. In other words, abortion was legalized so that it could be closely and safely regulated. In effect, legalizing abortion did not create the practice but instead served to wrangle it in."

A few days ago I read of a pregnant woman here in Colorado who was given an incorrect prescription from her pharmacist - an abortion pill - by mistake. Last I'd heard, the devastated woman didn't yet know whether the fetus inside her was still alive or not. If it is, it will likely have severe birth defects that will almost certainly take its life shortly after birth.

Yesterday I read of a survey that was done in which babies with the disease spina bifida were surgically treated. In some cases, the surgery was performed on fetuses in utero (between 19-26 weeks old), and for other babies, the operation took place shortly after birth. The study found that the surgeries performed on the unborn fetuses were more effective than those on the already-born babies. In other words, having the operation done before birth made it more likely that the child would be able to walk, and have fewer neurological problems.

Everyone (regardless of political persuasion) seems to agree that Dr. Gosnell (from the first story) is a disgusting creep. I don't quite understand, however, why "pro-choice" people are at all outraged. Is it because his clinic was dirtier than others? It certainly can't be the fact that he killed babies - that's the very foundation of their position! Maybe it's that he used scissors. Barbaric? Perhaps. But if I were given the choice between being murdered by a scissors-wielding doctor and being murdered by a doctor with a giant vacuum that would crush me to death, it wouldn't really matter which one I chose, would it?

The last two stories I mentioned (the incorrect prescription to the pregnant woman, and the study about fetal surgery) are discussed well in THIS blog post by Joel Lindsey. Joel points out the "moral schizophrenia" of America's response to these stories. We're outraged because a pregnant woman has (most likely) lost her baby, but the only difference between her baby and the million that are legally aborted each year is that she wants hers. Similarly, in the story about fetal surgery 19-week old fetuses are treated as patients, given the very best of medical care... but again, the only difference between these fetuses and those that are aborted is that the mothers want them.

So we come to my friend's view on abortion, which frankly has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. I guess first of all I'll point out that facts are facts. Estimates are that perhaps 50-60,000 abortions took place the year before Roe. Since the practice became legal, the numbers have climbed dramatically to more than a million per year today. If my friend is "pro-life" as he claims, I take that to mean that he believes abortion is the killing of an innocent life. How can you possibly believe that the killing of one million lives is preferable to the killing of 60,000? I'll agree that 60,000 is still a shocking and horrific number, but it's 94% better than a million, right? Or is it because the 60,000 were killed in private homes and not culturally- and government-sanctioned medical centers (like the lovely one run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia)? That's quite a job the government seems to have done "wrangling in" the "dangerous" practice of abortion. The words "safely regulated," when used in reference to a practice that is, by definition, murder, sound pretty silly to me. That's like saying we ought to make genocide safely regulated. A lot of good that will do, I'm sure.

"Back-ally" or not, abortion is every bit as dangerous to the fetus today as it was then. Now there's just a whole lot more of it.

A long video - but worth it.

I found the below video to be fun and insightful, and I'm really glad I watched it. It's 20 minutes long, which usually means I won't take the time, but this time I did and I'm glad.

You also might benefit from reading Kevin DeYoung's blog post where I first saw this video. He describes what he likes about it and what we might gain from it.

A sentence

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

That's not just nonsense. It is a grammatically valid sentence.

Josh Hamilton, outfielder for the American League Champion Texas Rangers, was named the ALCS MVP last night. Hamilton's an incredibly talented player who's an outspoken Christian. After being a top draft pick more than ten years ago, Hamilton became a drug addict and an alcoholic, and ended up being completely banned from baseball for a couple of years in the mid-2000s.

Anyway, if you're interested in good stories about good people, HERE'S one from Sports Illustrated written in the spring of 2008.

Call me a geek...

But THIS is super awesome. Apparently, Israel and Google are teaming up to put the entire collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls online. They'll be viewable in their original form. They'll include English translations of the text. They'll be searchable. And they'll be FREE.

How underdogs can win

I find stories like THIS to be extremely fascinating. Warning: It's LONG.

What does the Bible say about Social Justice?

I recently began to write a post on social justice and young evangelicals. Instead I'll summarize my point and save you some time. I think it's great that Christians of my generation have taken huge steps toward helping and caring for the poor and the oppressed in our world. On the other hand, it seems to me that too many of these Christians have turned helping the poor into the gospel itself. Many have come to believe (though they may not say it this way) that alleviating suffering by feeding the hungry is the end goal of Christianity, and I think that's a huge mistake.

Rather than writing a long post on this topic (which, as I said, I originally began to do), I've decided that it will be much more worth your while to read a much better writer and thinker than me. Kevin DeYoung recently finished up an 8-part series on poverty and social justice. In each post he focused on a single passage of Scripture that is commonly used in the social justice discussion (except the last post, which is a summary/wrap-up/conclusion).

I've linked to all 8 posts below and would strongly encourage you to check them out if you're at all interested in this topic (none of them is too long).

If you don't want to check them out, I'll give you my own SUPER brief summary of his 2 main conclusions in the final post:
1. Don't undersell what the Bible says about the poor and social justice (In other words, helping the poor is a very important thing for Christians to do).
2. Don't oversell what the Bible says about the poor and social justice (In other words, "the alleviation of poverty is simply not the main storyline of Scripture").

Passage #1 (Isaiah 1)
Passage #2 (Isaiah 58)
Passage #3 (Jeremiah 22)
Passage #4 (Matthew 25:31-46)
Passage #5 (Amos 5)
Passage #6 (Micah 6:8)
Passage #7 (Luke 4:16-21)
A Brief Wrap-up

(For those who just can't get enough, below are four more related posts that Kevin had written earlier and are not part of this series but deal with the same theme.)

Moral Proximity
Leviticus 19
Leviticus 25
The term "social justice"

Stolen cars

Here's a list of the 5 most frequently stolen vehicles on the road (according to some official agency that apparently has the authority to make these claims).

Since a "1996 Jetta with lots of cracks in the windshield and a sunroof that you have to manually roll open with an allen wrench" isn't on the list, I probably don't have to worry about my car being stolen.

In case you're wondering, Elizabeth, they also don't list "'99 Grand Am with a weird sporadic clicking noise," so your car should be fine too.

"May God speed the day of reckoning." - Justin Taylor

Perhaps I should be embarrassed about this, but I had never heard of Andrew Peterson until yesterday morning. All of a sudden his music and information about his brand new album, Counting Stars, started showing up on a number of blogs I read and Twitter feeds I follow. Since a few of the songs from this album were available to stream on a couple of the blogs, I gave him a listen. After listening to three songs I decided I'm a big fan of Peterson (it really only took one song). He's making a rapid climb up my "favorites" ladder, and if I had the money to buy a music album right now it would be his for sure.

I've embedded two of his songs below. The first one is a music video for Dancing in the Minefields, which is a close second-favorite for me. The second "video" just plays the song The Reckoning as well as its lyrics. The Reckoning might be my new favorite song. Out of, you know, ALL the songs. That exist (even ahead of the amazing song that Emily posted last night). Anyway,  listen to these songs and then let me know if you'd like to join me in becoming an Andrew Peterson fan (or if you already are one!).

baffling

Kevin DeYoung has a fabulous post on What to Do When the Bible Baffles. As someone who is working on a Master's degree in Biblical studies, let me be the first to say that the Bible does indeed baffle quite a bit!

It's well worth the read, though.

love and hate

Joel Willitts shares a few thoughts on the popular Christian saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Check it out.

What do you think?

Dealing with Disappointment in the church

As you know, it's not uncommon for me to link to Kevin DeYoung's blog when he posts things I think are particularly good.

He's just finished up a 3-part series on disappointment in the church (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).

None of them is too long, so check it out.

Iowa trip, briefly

We went to Iowa last week. We were there from Wednesday evening through Sunday morning, and we didn't see the sun once. It was okay, though. It wasn't THAT cold, and it never really rained on us, it was just foggy and sometimes misty and VERY wet because of the buckets and buckets of melting snow.

It was a fabulous trip, but quite busy. We got to see my whole family. Elizabeth's parents took time off work to come to Ames and hang out with us for an afternoon too. Her brother Clay hosted us for three nights and he was far more gracious than he needed to be.

Oh, and on Saturday night, Jase and Rachel got married.

CLICK HERE to see a facebook photo album from our trip.

Smokin'

I just read THIS blog post on the Stuff Christians Like blog (if you don't read it, you should) about Christians who smoke.


In the comments section I read a comment that said, "There will be plenty of cigarette smokers in heaven, and Jesus will probably smack them in the head and say, 'gross, dude.'"


I thought that was hilarious. And true.

Haiti blog post from Dr. Blomberg

A new blog post from Dr. Craig Blomberg (of Denver Seminary fame) asks, "Is Haiti being judged?" It's only a couple minutes worth of reading.