October 31, 2011
October 29, 2011
Excitement in the Rohde house
On October 27, 2006, this happened in Colorado Springs when the Cardinals won their first World Series since 1982:
The guy she's on the phone with was her boyfriend of 7 months (that would be me).
On October 28, 2011, this happened in Englewood, CO when the Cardinals won the World Series... again:
That's my wife; a true life-long die-hard St. Louis Cardinals fan.
October 27, 2011
The Twilight Zone
We've lived in Denver for over four years now, and over that time I've observed what I believe to be a very strange phenomenon. Quite often, when waiting at a red light, the first car in a given lane will wait 1-2 car-lengths behind the line where you're supposed to stop. Does anyone have any idea why this is so? And why I've never noticed this anywhere else in the country? It's as though they want to get a running start at the line when the light turns green. I don't understand it. I need help.
October 22, 2011
Humorous Pictures
Here are some pics from around the internet I've discovered and found amusing. (The Facebook one is my personal favorite.)
October 13, 2011
Probably the most political I've ever been on this blog
I know almost nothing about these "Occupy Wall Street" protests that are going on. What I think I've gathered is that this movement is made up of mostly left-side-of-the-aisle people who think companies and Tea Partiers are bad, and taxing the rich (and everyone else who's not one of them) is good. I haven't really figured out exactly what they're protesting or what they wish to accomplish.
Anyway, I came across THIS site yesterday where people who support this movement are encouraged to write down their woeful tales of debt and unemployment, and then take a picture of themselves holding up their handwritten story. Together, these people consider themselves the 99% of our population who are apparently the "have-nots" who are sick of being trampled on by the "haves."
Here are some copied-and-pasted examples (in italics), with a few of the responses that ran through my head as I read them (forgive my snarkiness):
“I was kicked out of my parent’s house when I turned 18. I lived with a friend for a year or so while I could get my feet under me. I joined our nation’s Navy, but they kicked me out too. Now I live in my best friend’s mother’s basement because I can’t afford to survive on my own I have a job and go to school full time, but my job pays less than I need and school causes me to miss out on hours I so desperately need. I have a mountain of debt, no credit, and no one cares.”
It's not cruel for parents to expect their 18-year olds to move out, move on, get a job, and begin their own life. The Navy, to my knowledge, doesn't kick people out willy-nilly. If it had been an unfair discharge, you surely would have noted that (which leads me to believe you did something to deserve it). I'm sorry that "no one cares." I truly am. I think it's terribly sad that not everyone has a network of friends and family upon whom they can count when times are tough. But if you (or this movement you're so in love with) think it's the fault of Republicans, or capitalism, or really any other idea you don't happen to like, I'd say you've got a tough case to make.
"I have anorexia. Pretty soon I will be unable to work. My husband has an amazing job and luckily my health issues will be covered. The only problem is he hates working there. He is unhappy and unable to change anything because of my mental condition. I wish I could help. I wish everyone wasn't so scared. Why is it so hard for humanity to help each other?"
I'm sorry you have anorexia. What's the connection between having anorexia and not being able to work "pretty soon" (or is there one)? Your husband, frankly, sounds kind of picky to me. An "amazing job" that he doesn't enjoy is better than no job at all. Millions of people would, I'm sure, be happy to trade you places.
“my 27 year old brother was laid off from his job in construction, and was promised that they would let him come back. They lied. he sat at home all day, every day, because he was sure they would let him come back. he went on unemployment for the time being (about a year), and then got a call saying that he wasnt going to be let back in to the company. now he works at my county’s fairgrounds getting paid $12.00 an hour, and he lives with my parents and myself because he can’t afford to live on his own and my parents cant afford to live without him."
Sounds like kind of a jerk of a company. However, let me point out that it's not terribly responsible of your brother to sit "at home all day, every day" on the hope that the company he used to work for was honest and upright. And $12.00 an hour? Wow, that's less than $5/hour more than minimum wage! You're brother's getting so screwed. I can't believe he's not living on the streets at that wage. We should definitely raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour (oh wait... if we did that, the fairgrounds wouldn't hire him at all because they couldn't justify paying him that much... if only there weren't consequences for our actions!).
"In 2008, I had a job that paid $50,000/year and had great benefits -- even a pension. For the next three years, I was mostly unemployed; getting short-term temporary positions. Now, I've got a 'permanent' position: $10/hour, no benefits and only three days a week."
So... how did you go from making $50k a year to unemployed? Surely it was an unfair move by your employer. But, why didn't you tell us about that? Now I'm left to wonder whether or not you had your own hand in it. And why didn't you save anything when you were doing so well? Carpe Diem, eh?
"I am 3 months from a BA in global management. But, it won't be enough. I have to go into more debt to get a Masters, & pray I find a job then."
Stupid country. Forcing you to attend more school and go into more debt. You've practically got a gun to your head, haven't you? And what happens when you've got your Masters, more debt, and still can't get a job? Man, if only we made President Obama into a dictator. Surely he would help you reach your dream of becoming a... global manager?
"30k in debt for student loans for a degree I will never use."
Again, I feel terrible that the "system" pointed an AK-47 at your head and forced you to go to school, and forced you into a major that you either didn't want or wasn't useful. How is this someone else's fault? What if I complained that Toyota sold me a perfectly good Camry that I'll never drive. Is that Toyota's fault, or am I just stupid?
"College (check) Job (check) Grad School (check) Marriage (check) House (check) Kids (no check) I made responsible decisions, but that only led to debt. How will my husband and I ever afford children, when we already live check to check??"
And here we go again. How do you define "responsible?" If you're so far in debt, what are you doing buying a house? Is it responsible for me to buy a yacht because that's what all my friends are doing, or because I think it'll be nice to have, if I don't have the money to pay for it?
"Us? Three years of wedded bliss. Me? Laid off from a job I loved in a voicemail with no explanation? (Unemployment never came through either). Now I work 50 hours a week and barely make $25,000. Oh, and I drive 35 min to get there. Him? Working full time and going to school full time. I came from a rags to riches family, but my parents make $350,000 more than I do at least. Luxuries include a home, birth control and heat. Not to mention the ability to barely pay off our student loans (which are still accumulating). Welcome to the American Dream. BUT, I AM STILL LUCKY!"
Your parents seem to have plenty of money with which they can help you. But you'd rather require the rest of the country to help you instead with their tax dollars, right?
Anyway, I came across THIS site yesterday where people who support this movement are encouraged to write down their woeful tales of debt and unemployment, and then take a picture of themselves holding up their handwritten story. Together, these people consider themselves the 99% of our population who are apparently the "have-nots" who are sick of being trampled on by the "haves."
Here are some copied-and-pasted examples (in italics), with a few of the responses that ran through my head as I read them (forgive my snarkiness):
“I was kicked out of my parent’s house when I turned 18. I lived with a friend for a year or so while I could get my feet under me. I joined our nation’s Navy, but they kicked me out too. Now I live in my best friend’s mother’s basement because I can’t afford to survive on my own I have a job and go to school full time, but my job pays less than I need and school causes me to miss out on hours I so desperately need. I have a mountain of debt, no credit, and no one cares.”
It's not cruel for parents to expect their 18-year olds to move out, move on, get a job, and begin their own life. The Navy, to my knowledge, doesn't kick people out willy-nilly. If it had been an unfair discharge, you surely would have noted that (which leads me to believe you did something to deserve it). I'm sorry that "no one cares." I truly am. I think it's terribly sad that not everyone has a network of friends and family upon whom they can count when times are tough. But if you (or this movement you're so in love with) think it's the fault of Republicans, or capitalism, or really any other idea you don't happen to like, I'd say you've got a tough case to make.
"I have anorexia. Pretty soon I will be unable to work. My husband has an amazing job and luckily my health issues will be covered. The only problem is he hates working there. He is unhappy and unable to change anything because of my mental condition. I wish I could help. I wish everyone wasn't so scared. Why is it so hard for humanity to help each other?"
I'm sorry you have anorexia. What's the connection between having anorexia and not being able to work "pretty soon" (or is there one)? Your husband, frankly, sounds kind of picky to me. An "amazing job" that he doesn't enjoy is better than no job at all. Millions of people would, I'm sure, be happy to trade you places.
“my 27 year old brother was laid off from his job in construction, and was promised that they would let him come back. They lied. he sat at home all day, every day, because he was sure they would let him come back. he went on unemployment for the time being (about a year), and then got a call saying that he wasnt going to be let back in to the company. now he works at my county’s fairgrounds getting paid $12.00 an hour, and he lives with my parents and myself because he can’t afford to live on his own and my parents cant afford to live without him."
Sounds like kind of a jerk of a company. However, let me point out that it's not terribly responsible of your brother to sit "at home all day, every day" on the hope that the company he used to work for was honest and upright. And $12.00 an hour? Wow, that's less than $5/hour more than minimum wage! You're brother's getting so screwed. I can't believe he's not living on the streets at that wage. We should definitely raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour (oh wait... if we did that, the fairgrounds wouldn't hire him at all because they couldn't justify paying him that much... if only there weren't consequences for our actions!).
"In 2008, I had a job that paid $50,000/year and had great benefits -- even a pension. For the next three years, I was mostly unemployed; getting short-term temporary positions. Now, I've got a 'permanent' position: $10/hour, no benefits and only three days a week."
So... how did you go from making $50k a year to unemployed? Surely it was an unfair move by your employer. But, why didn't you tell us about that? Now I'm left to wonder whether or not you had your own hand in it. And why didn't you save anything when you were doing so well? Carpe Diem, eh?
"I am 3 months from a BA in global management. But, it won't be enough. I have to go into more debt to get a Masters, & pray I find a job then."
Stupid country. Forcing you to attend more school and go into more debt. You've practically got a gun to your head, haven't you? And what happens when you've got your Masters, more debt, and still can't get a job? Man, if only we made President Obama into a dictator. Surely he would help you reach your dream of becoming a... global manager?
"30k in debt for student loans for a degree I will never use."
Again, I feel terrible that the "system" pointed an AK-47 at your head and forced you to go to school, and forced you into a major that you either didn't want or wasn't useful. How is this someone else's fault? What if I complained that Toyota sold me a perfectly good Camry that I'll never drive. Is that Toyota's fault, or am I just stupid?
"College (check) Job (check) Grad School (check) Marriage (check) House (check) Kids (no check) I made responsible decisions, but that only led to debt. How will my husband and I ever afford children, when we already live check to check??"
And here we go again. How do you define "responsible?" If you're so far in debt, what are you doing buying a house? Is it responsible for me to buy a yacht because that's what all my friends are doing, or because I think it'll be nice to have, if I don't have the money to pay for it?
"Us? Three years of wedded bliss. Me? Laid off from a job I loved in a voicemail with no explanation? (Unemployment never came through either). Now I work 50 hours a week and barely make $25,000. Oh, and I drive 35 min to get there. Him? Working full time and going to school full time. I came from a rags to riches family, but my parents make $350,000 more than I do at least. Luxuries include a home, birth control and heat. Not to mention the ability to barely pay off our student loans (which are still accumulating). Welcome to the American Dream. BUT, I AM STILL LUCKY!"
Your parents seem to have plenty of money with which they can help you. But you'd rather require the rest of the country to help you instead with their tax dollars, right?
New Address for Football Talk
Most of you don't care, but for Joel & Jase (and maybe mom? and Elizabeth?), I've changed the address of my NFL/Dallas Cowboys blog. You can find it HERE. If you subscribe, you'll need to add the new address to your feed reader. Thanks.
September 29, 2011
Baseball: It's NOT boring
This is a fairly long sports post. I'm telling you this up front so that if you're not interested, you can just skip it altogether. I'm not primarily writing this to inform anyone, but to record, for posterity, my story of what I believe to be one of the most exciting nights in sports of my entire life.
At the beginning of September the Boston Red Sox held a 9-game lead over the Tampa Bay Rays in the race for the American League wild card (i.e., the final playoff spot available). On September 6, the Atlanta Braves led the St. Louis Cardinals by 8 1/2 games in the race for the National League wild card.
After Tuesday night's games, both wild card races were tied. Last night was the last night of the regular season for Major League Baseball. In the AL, the Red Sox were playing the Orioles, and the Rays were playing the Yankees. If both teams won OR both teams lost, they would have to play each other tonight to see who would make the playoffs. If one team won and the other lost, the winning team gets the last spot.
In the NL, the Cardinals were playing the Astros, and the Braves were playing the Phillies. It was the same situation as the AL.
I turned on the Braves game at about 5:30 pm. ESPN 2 was showing the Braves game, and would switch to the Cardinals game when the Braves game was over. But, the Cardinals game lasted only 2.5 hours as the redbirds smoked the Astros 8-0, so it never appeared on TV. After the win, the Cardinals were guaranteed at least a play-in game, depending on what happened with the Braves. Atlanta led 3-1 for most of the game. In the 7th inning the Phillies scored a run, cutting the lead to 3-2. In the 9th, the Phillies got a single, a few walks, and a sacrifice fly to tie the game at 3. The game stayed tied until the 13th inning (the Braves, at this point, knew that the Cardinals had won and that they needed a win to stay alive), when the Phillies were able to manufacture a run off an unimpressive RBI single by Hunter Pence. The Braves couldn't score in the bottom of the 13th and lost the game. A close, exciting game. It was 9:40 pm and the Braves had completed the worst September collapse in MLB history, missing out on the playoffs.
Meanwhile, in the American League games, the Red Sox led 3-2 over the Orioles and had been in a rain delay for quite some time, no doubt following the action in New York where the Rays were getting walloped 7-0 by the Yankees. Not long after the Red Sox game resumed, something weird happened in New York. It was the bottom of the 8th, and somehow the Rays managed to score 6 runs. It's quite rare for a team to score 6 in a single inning. But then the inning ended, and the Rays were still behind 7-6 with only one inning left. But in the bottom of the 9th, with two outs, the Rays had just one more chance to hang on. Manager Joe Maddon called on a pinch hitter named Dan Johnson to bat. Johnson's batting average was .108 (translation: awful) and he did not have a hit in the month of September. Johnson hit a home run. The Rays were tied with the Yankees and heading to extra innings.
As the game stayed tied in New York, another anomaly was happening in Baltimore. It was the bottom of the 9th and the Orioles were still behind 3-2 in a game which was quickly looking like an absolute must-win for the Red Sox. The Sox put in one of the best closers in the world: Jonathan Papelbon. This season, the Red Sox were 76-0 when leading after 8 innings, and Papelbon was a big reason why. Papelbon struck out the first two Orioles. Now the Red Sox needed just one more out and they would be assured at least one more day of hope for the postseason. But the next Oriole hit a double. The one after that hit a ground-rule double to tie the game at 3. Then Robert Andino came to the plate and hit a soft line-drive to left field. The Sox left fielder couldn't make the catch (even though he appeared to be in position to). The Red Sox had blown a 9th inning lead for the first time all year and lost. What? It was 10:02 here in Denver. But the Red Sox would still be fine, as long as those pesky Rays didn't pull out a win.
But down in Tampa, the Rays were still tied with the Yankees in the bottom of the 12th. It was 10:05 Mountain Time, and the scoreboard at Tropicana Field had just been updated for the fans to see that Boston had lost. A Rays win would put them in the playoffs. And Evan Longoria pulled a line drive shot down the left field line. It cleared the fence by about a foot. The Rays won. Twenty-five minutes earlier, the Braves had set a new record low for awful collapses in the Major Leagues, but when Longoria hit his home run, the Red Sox collapse trumped it.
Most of the night it looked like a sure thing that the Cardinals would win, but so would the Braves, and they'd have a play-in game tonight. It also looked like the Red Sox would win and the Rays would lose and Boston would clinch the AL wild card. Instead, the Braves lost in 13 innings and the Cardinals got the wild card outright. Then the Sox stumbled and the Rays pulled off a miraculous comeback, and the Rays got the wild card outright.
One of the most exciting sports nights I can remember. I couldn't even sleep well because I was so blown away by what I had just witnessed. Incredible.
Update:
Here are some related notes I found interesting:
In an unrelated baseball story, Jose Reyes of the New York Mets caused some controversy yesterday. Reyes was seeking to win the National League batting title (i.e., best batting average in the league). In his first at bat, he bunted for a hit. Then he took himself out of the game to preserve his average and get the title. I thought that was cowardly. Ironically, this occurred on the 70th anniversary of one of baseball's great stories. In 1941 Ted Williams entered the final day of the season with a batting average just over .400 -- a monumentally great average. His manager told him he could sit out the day's double-header to preserve that average. Williams refused. He played in both games, risking his average with every at bat. Williams went 6 for 8 that day and raised his average to a whopping .406. Ted Williams had guts. Jose Reyes did not.
At the beginning of September the Boston Red Sox held a 9-game lead over the Tampa Bay Rays in the race for the American League wild card (i.e., the final playoff spot available). On September 6, the Atlanta Braves led the St. Louis Cardinals by 8 1/2 games in the race for the National League wild card.
After Tuesday night's games, both wild card races were tied. Last night was the last night of the regular season for Major League Baseball. In the AL, the Red Sox were playing the Orioles, and the Rays were playing the Yankees. If both teams won OR both teams lost, they would have to play each other tonight to see who would make the playoffs. If one team won and the other lost, the winning team gets the last spot.
In the NL, the Cardinals were playing the Astros, and the Braves were playing the Phillies. It was the same situation as the AL.
I turned on the Braves game at about 5:30 pm. ESPN 2 was showing the Braves game, and would switch to the Cardinals game when the Braves game was over. But, the Cardinals game lasted only 2.5 hours as the redbirds smoked the Astros 8-0, so it never appeared on TV. After the win, the Cardinals were guaranteed at least a play-in game, depending on what happened with the Braves. Atlanta led 3-1 for most of the game. In the 7th inning the Phillies scored a run, cutting the lead to 3-2. In the 9th, the Phillies got a single, a few walks, and a sacrifice fly to tie the game at 3. The game stayed tied until the 13th inning (the Braves, at this point, knew that the Cardinals had won and that they needed a win to stay alive), when the Phillies were able to manufacture a run off an unimpressive RBI single by Hunter Pence. The Braves couldn't score in the bottom of the 13th and lost the game. A close, exciting game. It was 9:40 pm and the Braves had completed the worst September collapse in MLB history, missing out on the playoffs.
Meanwhile, in the American League games, the Red Sox led 3-2 over the Orioles and had been in a rain delay for quite some time, no doubt following the action in New York where the Rays were getting walloped 7-0 by the Yankees. Not long after the Red Sox game resumed, something weird happened in New York. It was the bottom of the 8th, and somehow the Rays managed to score 6 runs. It's quite rare for a team to score 6 in a single inning. But then the inning ended, and the Rays were still behind 7-6 with only one inning left. But in the bottom of the 9th, with two outs, the Rays had just one more chance to hang on. Manager Joe Maddon called on a pinch hitter named Dan Johnson to bat. Johnson's batting average was .108 (translation: awful) and he did not have a hit in the month of September. Johnson hit a home run. The Rays were tied with the Yankees and heading to extra innings.
As the game stayed tied in New York, another anomaly was happening in Baltimore. It was the bottom of the 9th and the Orioles were still behind 3-2 in a game which was quickly looking like an absolute must-win for the Red Sox. The Sox put in one of the best closers in the world: Jonathan Papelbon. This season, the Red Sox were 76-0 when leading after 8 innings, and Papelbon was a big reason why. Papelbon struck out the first two Orioles. Now the Red Sox needed just one more out and they would be assured at least one more day of hope for the postseason. But the next Oriole hit a double. The one after that hit a ground-rule double to tie the game at 3. Then Robert Andino came to the plate and hit a soft line-drive to left field. The Sox left fielder couldn't make the catch (even though he appeared to be in position to). The Red Sox had blown a 9th inning lead for the first time all year and lost. What? It was 10:02 here in Denver. But the Red Sox would still be fine, as long as those pesky Rays didn't pull out a win.
But down in Tampa, the Rays were still tied with the Yankees in the bottom of the 12th. It was 10:05 Mountain Time, and the scoreboard at Tropicana Field had just been updated for the fans to see that Boston had lost. A Rays win would put them in the playoffs. And Evan Longoria pulled a line drive shot down the left field line. It cleared the fence by about a foot. The Rays won. Twenty-five minutes earlier, the Braves had set a new record low for awful collapses in the Major Leagues, but when Longoria hit his home run, the Red Sox collapse trumped it.
Most of the night it looked like a sure thing that the Cardinals would win, but so would the Braves, and they'd have a play-in game tonight. It also looked like the Red Sox would win and the Rays would lose and Boston would clinch the AL wild card. Instead, the Braves lost in 13 innings and the Cardinals got the wild card outright. Then the Sox stumbled and the Rays pulled off a miraculous comeback, and the Rays got the wild card outright.
One of the most exciting sports nights I can remember. I couldn't even sleep well because I was so blown away by what I had just witnessed. Incredible.
Update:
Here are some related notes I found interesting:
- I mentioned above that the Red Sox were 76-0 this season when taking a lead into the 9th inning prior to last night. Also, though, the Yankees hadn't blown a lead that big (7 runs) that late (8th inning) since 1953. Those were the two stats that had to be overcome for Tampa to end up in the playoffs.
- The Red Sox were 7-20 in the month of September.
- In 3 of the 4 games with playoff implications last night, a team was 1 out from winning and ended up losing.
- Great Sports Illustrated story on the drama of September 28, 2011 can be found here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tom_verducci/09/29/game.162.drama/index.html?eref=sircrc
In an unrelated baseball story, Jose Reyes of the New York Mets caused some controversy yesterday. Reyes was seeking to win the National League batting title (i.e., best batting average in the league). In his first at bat, he bunted for a hit. Then he took himself out of the game to preserve his average and get the title. I thought that was cowardly. Ironically, this occurred on the 70th anniversary of one of baseball's great stories. In 1941 Ted Williams entered the final day of the season with a batting average just over .400 -- a monumentally great average. His manager told him he could sit out the day's double-header to preserve that average. Williams refused. He played in both games, risking his average with every at bat. Williams went 6 for 8 that day and raised his average to a whopping .406. Ted Williams had guts. Jose Reyes did not.
August 17, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)