Welcome to my blog. Here you will find things such as short stories I write, bits of novels, thoughts on Scripture that I'm reading, possibly talks that I have done (in text form) and sometimes a random thought that pops into my head.

The contents of some posts will be about my reading and will have bits of the little bit of life experience I have. Things such as "I saw a tree, it was an oak tree, I know because my life experience of primary school told me!"
Also there is a post on here about milk. Read that one, it's enjoyable!!
Some things you see here were written by a version of me I no longer agree with. I considered deleting these. I probably should. But I want to leave them here in order to show and indicate how someone can grow, learn, and have different opinions than they once held as they learn more about the world and themselves.

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Love Wins: A Review

To start off, Love Wins is the title of a 2011 Christian book by a guy called Rob Bell, that is what is being reviewed here, not the marriage referendum or the decision of the United States Supreme Court to federally legalise gay marriages. This book has nothing to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with the Gospel.

I've been meaning to read Rob Bell's Love Wins for some time. Since its publication in 2011 it has been surrounded by criticism, rejection and the cry of heresy. When there is such a strong reaction to anything it really makes you curious about what is being said. For the longest time I have had on my Kindle the orthodox (small o) Christian response to this book by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle.

Rob Bell, in my opinion, writes to a Christianity that does not officially exist. I have found it quite difficult to see where he is coming from in this book, he is often not very clear in his thought trains (and this book is written like a train of thought).
So, he never defines the Christianity he is speaking against, but here are some of the elements I have concluded from what he says about the Christianity he is denouncing.

- Christians are saved to leave earth forever and go to heaven.
- The Earth is destroyed at the end of time.
- When we are saved we have to work to maintain our salvation or make God happy.
- The God other Christians believe in is actually not good because He would allow people to choose hell.
- You have to be told about Jesus to believe in Him (as opposed to having a vision in Bagdad or something similar)
- That God is not interested in the restoration of all things, only a select number of human beings.

Now, I don't know about you, but that isn't the Christianity I follow, that isn't the God I know, that isn't the Gospel that was preached to me, that is not the testimony of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.

The fact that many Christians in America may believe in that form of Christianity is sad, it really saddens me. If it is true that there are many Christians believing the above list of things about God and Jesus and the Gospel then a book certainly needs to be written in order to address those issues scripturally and biblically, which of course they all can be.
However,
This is not that book! Rob Bell has chosen the worst aspects people believe about the Gospel and Christianity and used them as his backdrop for a belief that simply is not right.

That means that there is a tonne of good stuff in this book, so much gold! However, Bell uses it all to say Hell is what we make it, basically. It's not a real place and we can all be happy and go skipping through the Fields of Ashphodel because they all lead to Elysium anyway... That's simply not the case and is misleading.

The blend of great truth after great truth with a conclusion that is a lie reminds me of something else, someone else, somewhere else who said "Did God say?" That's strong, I know... but that's often how the conclusions (where they were clearly stated which did not happen often) left me feeling.

Below are my notes that I took as I read through the book. I'm including them here because I think it can help you see better what I mean by all of the above, better than just aluding to it but showing you examples of the different things and places and areas I found what I have just introduced.
As always, please feel free to comment or enter dialogue about any of this, and if you want to ask an anonymous question you can do so at ask.fm/Wavey1111


Bell, R. (2011) Love Wins: At the Heart of Life's Big Questions, London: Collins

People who have read this book have said that Bell isn't as overtly universalist as people have interpreted. However, in the preface he states:
"A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian Faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus's message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." (VIII)
Nope, Bell seems to think the book is exactly what his detractors say it's about!

In the preface you can clearly see the influence of postmodern thinking on Bell:
"The ancient sages said the words of the sacred text were black letters on a white page-- there's all that white space, waiting to be filled with our responses and discussions and debates and opinions and longings and desires and wisdom and insights." (X)
Note how Bell does not specify where the quote of the ancients ends and his own thoughts on it begin. He is saying that this is exactly what the ancients meant. When likely the quote means Scripture is black and white!

In the preface also, Bell tries to point out that this way of thinking is the ancient Christian way of thinking without backing it up.
"I haven't come up with a radical new teaching that's any kind of departure from what's been said an untold number of times. That's the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith." (X)

1 What about the Flat Tire?
Again we have the issue of people going to Hell. Bell brings up Ghandi as a good, peaceful non-Christian man, and the idea that we can never know whether someone is in hell or not. (2)

He then goes on to ask questions about the fairness of God and the difficulty of being part of the "in" Christian crowd (2-3)

Bell basically goes on to question every Christian salvation doctrine to raise doubt in people's minds, it seems to me he's attempting to make orthodox Christian soteriology out to be nonsensical and even horrible. I have to say... This sounds like the actions of someone else who questioned God in a like manner (Genesis 3). The similarities between Satan's questioning of God and Bell's questioning are obvious, though he says he is questioning like Jesus is; the irreverence in the tone and word choice is not something you would ever see in the questions asked by Jesus. (5)

All this leads to the good point that often Christians only care if someone is going to heaven or not and abandon the earth because their limited theology sees heaven as their destination and Earth as something to leave be burned up. (6)
I agree with Bell here, mainstream Christianity needs to take more interest in the world around them and care about what's going on: feed the sick etc. (7) however. That doesn't mean we reject Scripture in order to do social good. That's foolishness!

"Some Jesuses should be rejected." (9)
Here here, possibly including yours... Not sure I haven't met him yet!

He points out that the term "personal relationship with Jesus" is found nowhere in the Bible or Christian history until the 19th century. (10)

He also points out that Christianity is called a free gift that is by grace not put actions and that accepting and believing are verbs and so actions so how does that work together? (11)
Finally a good couple of points. Let's see how he sorts these out. Though I think I can guess!

2 Here is the New There:
He is talking about heaven as being somewhere else, as if it is wrong that heaven is somewhere else. This guy is in serious need of a Bible!

“We might call them “eras” or “periods of time”: this age—the one we’re living in—and the age to come… So according to Jesus there is this age, this aion—the one they, and we, are living in—and then a coming age, also called “the world to come” or simply “eternity”.
“Seeing the present and future in terms of two ages was not a concept or teaching that originated with Jesus.” (30-2)
Does he hear himself? He has just spent a page and a half explaining that there are two different periods and then concludes there isn’t...

“heaven on earth” (33). Yes, well done, that’s orthodox Christian teaching, but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a heaven in heaven between this and the new earth.

When he is talking about the new age being on earth, as if some day it will just happen… What about everyone who has died? (40) 

“the more actively you participate now in ordering and working to bring about God’s kind of world, the more ready you will be to assume an even greater role in the age to come.” (40) Agreed!

"Taking heaven seriously, then, means taking suffering seriously, now. Not because we've bought into the myth that we can create a utopia given enough time, technology and good voting choices, but because we have great confidence that God has not abandoned human history and is actively at work within it, taking it somewhere." (45) Amen!

Bell quotes verses such as "away from me you evil doer". Interesting to see how this fits with everyone gets to heaven ideas. (52)

Ok, so as weirdly as some things are worded this chapter is orthodox Christianity through and through. The new earth is this earth, the earth won't be destroyed, eternal life isn't just then but it starts now, those who are faithful with a little now are given a lot then, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven", what will last besides activities that will be done in heaven so do those now. All great stuff, but the preface points that something will go wrong in future chapters!

3 Hell:
“Do I believe in a literal hell? Of course. Those aren’t metaphorical missing arms and legs.” (71)
Though Bell’s theology of heaven is more accurate than this statement about hell seems to be, it does appear that there is a descending work in Bell’s theology. He brings heaven down to being on earth, and hell down to only being on earth.

He talks about Luke 16 and the carrying of Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom as him going to heaven. Not usually an accepted idea. Abraham’s bosom is thought to be the good part of Sheol, the part where people were waiting for the Messiah in faith. (74)

Bell points out that the rich man asking Lazarus to bring him water is asking Lazarus to serve him. That he still believes Lazarus to be below him as he was in life. He then concludes that the chasm between them is the condition of the man’s heart, because in death he still sees Lazarus as below him. (75) I think that’s reading into the story a bit much!

“The gospel Jesus spreads in the book of Luke has as one of its main themes that Jesus brings a social revolution… Everybody is a brother, a sister. Equals, children of the God who shows no favoritism. To reject this new social order was to reject Jesus.” (75-6)
Really? That’s a very low view of what Jesus came to do. Salvation is much more than that, and the Bible talks about serving God in your present position, whether slave or free.

“This is not to say that hell is not a pointed, urgent warning or that it isn’t intimately connected with what we actually do believe, but simply to point out that Jesus talked about hell to the people who considered themselves “in,” warning them that their hard hearts were putting their “in-ness” at risk, reminding them that whatever “chosen-ness” or “election” meant, whatever special standing they believed they had with God was always, only, ever about their being the kind of transformed, generous, loving people through whom God could show the world what God’s love looks like in flesh and blood.” (82-3)

Bell talks about how there is hope for Sodom and Gomorrah even now, and he cites Ezekiel 16 to back up his position (85). Ezekiel 16 is all about how Judah has been ‘whoring’ after other gods and using the good things god has given to pay those who she whores with for sex with her (she isn’t making money, but spending God’s money). Then God compares her to Samaria and to Sodom and says that by comparison the deeds of Judah make Sodom look righteous (v. 52) I don’t know how literal this Sodom restoration is?

Bell mentions Isaiah 19 where it says there will be an altar in Egypt and remarks that the enemies of God will even worship Him, he interprets this as those who presently don’t worship God in the twenty-first century, will live on and worship God on the New Earth. That’s reading too much into it. The point is probably more that the great mystery of the Gospel, Jews and Gentiles as one, would be fulfilled and even Egyptians would become part of God’s family. (88)

4 Does God Get What God Wants?
“Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants [based on 1 Timothy 2]? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?” (98) As if our failure to come to God, to enter into Covenant with Him, is somehow a failure on His part?

99-100 quote a load of ‘all’ and ‘nations’ and ‘peoples’ verses and concludes this means all people will be saved, I don’t think it’s a fair conclusion. Ireland is often represented abroad by the President of Ireland, one man represents 4,500,000. If the President was at an event a commentator could correctly identify Ireland as being present, though not all 4,500,000 of us were.

Luther, asked about whether he believed after death there would be a second chance, basically said he wouldn’t put it past God, and if one second chance why not more, as many as it takes, so people eventually get to heaven, only staying in Hell as long as they ‘want’ to. (106-7)

Part of his "everyone goes to heaven" argument is that it makes a better story that God would do that than the story that God would allow people to be punished for eternity and not give second chances. (110-1) It’s not your story to decide Bell, it’s God’s!

He concludes that God loves us enough to give us what we want, heaven or hell. (118-9)

5 Dying to Live:
“When people say that Jesus came to die on the cross so that we can have a relationship with God, yes, that is true. But that explanation as the first explanation puts us at the center. For the first Christians, the story was, first foremost, bigger, grander. More massive. When Jesus is presented only as the answer that saves individuals from their sin and death, we run the risk of shrinking the Gospel down to something just for humans, when God has inaugurated a moment in Jesus’s resurrection to renew, restore, and reconcile everything “on earth or in heaven” (Col. 1), just as God originally intended it.” (134) Keller says this too, in Center Church, a better read than this book. 

6 There are Rocks Everywhere:
The rock is the one in Exodus that Paul says is Christ.

He says that people can experience Christ (in a rock like experience) and not even know it is Christ, and be saved.
I think Acts 17 about the former times of ignorance counters this.

However, I agree completely that people can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus anywhere in the world, with or without contact from Christians… but they have to know who they are relying on, it can’t be some ‘force’, it has to be Jesus.

7 The Good News is Better Than That:
In Luke 15 the older brother is at the party. I cannot exactly tell what conclusions Bell is drawing from that, but it sounds like he is saying Hell isn’t one place and heaven another, it’s a state of our hearts… This is certainly not respecting the genre of parable. Parables tell a story, a relatable story, with a point. This story has three main points, one for each character (though the main main point is likely the older brother). The story contains truth about God, those of us in rebellion against God and those of us who are religious but whose hearts are far from God. The fact that it ends at a party says nothing about heaven and hell, and that is reading too much in to things in my opinion. (168-70)

“We believe all sorts of things about ourselves. What the gospel does is confront our version of the story with God’s version of the story.” (171)

“Again, then, we create hell whenever we fail to trust God’s retelling of our story.” (173) How?

He talks about God being loving and merciful and forgiving and patient etc. until the moment of death if we don’t believe the right things. Then He becomes ‘cruel and a torturer’. Bell says this is not the sort of God he wants to follow. (174) The wording here makes it sound like we deserve the goodness of God. The fact that we do not face the wrath of God constantly is a sheer act of God’s love, mercy and patience. That God has allotted times for men to come to Him does not make Him any less loving or merciful.

“And that is the secret deep in the heart of many people, especially Christians: they don’t love God. They can’t, because the God they’ve been presented with and taught about can’t be loved. That God is terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable.” (174-5)
This line actually made me very angry. I love that God is merciful and forgiving and does not treat me as my sins deserve. I love that He pours common grace out on this world. I love that every second of every day He is sustaining and maintaining this world, and stopping it from descending into chaos. However, I also love that God is just, that He has no intentions of letting people who have hurt me and have hurt Him get away with those things scot free (yeah, it freaks me out that He will also judge me, but I would rather that than nothing). I love that those people who have hurt me and Him are, like I was, given a chance to know Him and come into fellowship both with me and Him, just as I was. I love that some day He will wipe away every tear and make all things right. I love that He loves us enough not to force us to love Him, not to overtake the free will He gave us and coerce us into knowing Him and being in relationship with Him. It pains Him, as it should pain me, to see anyone die separated from Him, but the reality is He loves us enough to let us decide, and I love Him for that.

“When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather than joyous participation, it can actually serve to cut people off from the explosive, liberating experience of the God who is an endless giving circle of joy and creativity.” (179) Very true.

“God is not a slave driver. The good news is better than that.” (181) Agreed, but don’t agree with Bell's conclusions about people living it up while we go to church and work away for God instead of experience life to the full.

“This is crucial for our peace, because we shape our God, and then our God shapes us.” (182) Okay, that’s stupid! God is God is God!

The older brother “thinks the Father owes him.” (186)

“Our badness can separate us from God’s love, that’s clear. But our goodness can separate us from God’s love as well.” (187) So true, relying on our works and not Christ will never bring us to heaven.

“Our trusting, our change of heart, our believing God’s version of our story doesn’t bring it [our place in His kingdom] into existence, make it happen or create it. It simply is.” (188). I agree, but not with the tone of the book around it. We can still not take our place, like how when SF was elected to the second Dáil and didn’t take their seats. The position was there, they just didn’t take it. I think the testimony of Scripture is that God has made a way and a place for us, but we need to enter into it, not that we are automatically in.

8 The End is Here:


In this last chapter, or conclusion really, he finally address some of the Scripture that has been missing from anywhere above, and he offers no different explanation for why Jesus talks about the five bridesmaids being left outside the wedding because they weren’t ready, except to say “live like the end is here, now, today.” (197). It really isn’t an adequate explanation of what he has just called “strong, shocking images of judgment and separation in which people miss out on rewards and celebrations and opportunities.” (197)