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)

Los Angeles, College etc.

Hi everyone,

As some of you know I have been working this year, and will be up until July, with Calvary Cork as a pastoral intern.

When this internship comes to an end it is my goal and desire to go to Calvary's training college and do a two year training course to drop the word intern.

As you may also know Los Angeles is an expensive place to live.

So, I'm doing a few things to try and raise some money to get there.



1. I'm basically selling everything with some exceptions (like my laptop, my phone, things that have Wavey on them, and my theology library)
So, if you want something I own make a donation and it's yours! (Again, with exceptions, my Buffy stuff is worth money, I'm not going to give away something for a Euro that if I found the right buyer could get 20, you know?)
Anyway, to this end I have set up an adverts.ie page, my username is WaveyCowpar
There's also a "Buffy Stuff for Sale" Facebook page.

2. Another thing you might know about me is that I am addicted to Coca-Cola. I have been my entire life. It's the real thing.

Anyway, before I go off on a crazy rant about Coca-Cola and my love of it
I AM GIVING COCA-COLA UP.
That's right. So here's the proposal I will give up Coke for 50 weeks, and for every week you make a donation of 1-2 Euro per week.
I don't even know if I can do that, but it works out that if all my Facebook friends gave 50 Euro it would cover rent for two years! [LA is expensive]

So, yeah, please consider giving 1 or 2 Euro a week to encourage me to not drink Coca-Cola for a whole year basically.

I have a Go Fund Me (gofundme.com/Wavey2CCBC)

Or get in contact via twitter (WaveyCowpar) or Facebook (Wavey Tonntach) and I can give you more information.

I plan to start the Monday of Ash Wednesday i.e. next Monday.




3. There will undoubtedly be other things coming up as I think of them!

Star Wars Episode VIII: Some things I would like to have known before seeing it

Hi everyone,

So, you haven't seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens yet? Good... That Galaxy far far away is a pretty big place, and a lot has happened since we last visited it in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.

There are spoilers in here, but they come later and regard Princess Leia and the Resistance only, I will warn you before that happens.

The Battle of Endor saw a decisive victory for the Alliance to Restore the Republic, with the destruction of the Second Death Star and the death of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader.

The Alliance reformed into the New Republic and sent messages to planets, encouraging them to rebel against the Imperial Garrisons on their planets. However, not every planet did so and the Empire held on to some of them. This led to the Civil War.

If you remember in the trailer the desert planet, Jakku, not Tatooine, that is where the final battle of the Civil War between the now massively expanded New Republic, thus the Star Destroyers littering the desert.

After this the Empire retreated to the unknown territory planets, and eventually signed a disarmament treaty with the New Republic. The Republic [and supposedly the Empire] then began to retire their large fleets, leading to the position we come to in the movie.

Meanwhile, the New Republic had to prove it was different from the Galactic Republic that the Empire replaced. The first way it did this was not to move the Senate back to the old building (seen in the prequels) on Coruscant (as far as I know it stayed part of the Empire, but I could be wrong).

Instead, the Senate of the New Republic moves to different host countries, also the Chancellor is no longer called the Supreme Chancellor (too Imperialistic, I guess). At the time of the Force Awakens the Chancellor is a guy called Lanever Villecham and the Senate presently sits on a planet called Hosnian Prime.


Ok, so spoilers (potentially, not really) will be below so stop reading and come back afterwards if you would prefer.













General Leia is not part of the Republic Senate in the Force Awakens. This is because she was suspicious of the Empire and believed, unlike the Republic, that they wouldn't disarm. This is why the Resistance force is so small in the movie, like ten X-Wings. It actually isn't sanctioned, fully, by the Republic. Leia actually has become annoyed with how slow the Republic Senate is to make decisions, just like her mother was when she voted no confidence in the Supreme Chancellor of her day!

The Senate began to see Leia as irrational and stuck in the past, thinking there would be war when the New Republic attempted to tell everyone there would be peace. Leia and the Senate eventually parted ways, though she still has a representative there. She then contacted the retired Admiral Ackbar, who first fought for the Republic in the Clone Wars, then for the Alliance and was drawn out of retirement to lend his military knowledge to the Resistance.

Operation Janus

Hey all, I have recently been reading the book The Martian, which I would highly recommend, and these missions named after Greek deities has inspired me to make all the problems in my flat a little more fun by giving them NASA style mission names and numbers. Janus and Eris, Chaos and Discord, ODDs 2 spoiler!

So, firstly, the whole thing is called Operation Janus because Janus was the Greek god of chaos and it seems like the flat is just living proof of entropy, or the theory that everything tends towards chaos. So Janus is like Apollo or something, it is the overarching group of missions.

Within operation Janus we presently have five other smaller missions.

Operation Triton - aka "the stinky bathroom". This is so named because Triton was a god of the sea and the bathroom has to do with water.

Operation Eris - the continuing struggle for hot water. So named because Eris was the goddess of discord and unshowered housemates can lead to discord.

Operation Hestia - there have been these leaks and wet carpets resulting. Hestia was the goddess of architecture and the hearth/home. Thought it was an apt name trying to stop leaking pipes and make this place a home again.

Operation Hephaestus - The fixing of the washing machine. Hephaestus was the god of blacksmiths and craftsmen and this is a technology problem.

Operation Pan - Wild mushrooms appearing! Inside. Pan was the god of the wild and nature.



Janus 1 was involved with Operation Triton and Operation Athena (the fixing of the internet, as she was the goddess of wisdom and the internet gives access to such).

Result: Operation Triton ongoing, Operation Athena sorted out by us getting in our own internet and not using the building's.

Operation Athena has been officially declared successful.

Janus 2 involved Operations Triton, Hestia and Hephaestus.

Result: Triton was ignored, Hestia was attempted to be fixed by replacing the cylinder and Hephaestus was fixed by me getting in a repair man.

Janus 3 again involved Operation Hestia, or Hestia 2, but was ignored. As were Operation Hestia 3 to 7.

Janus 4. This involved Hephaestus 4 and Hestia 8. The result was the leak causing Hestia eight that was then wetting our carpets (and also feeding Operation Pan) was sorted out.

Operation Hestia is officially declared successful!

Janus 5. Continuing from Janus 4 in many ways as Hephaestus 4 failed and Hephaestus 5 failed. Meaning Hephaestus is very much ongoing. This, however, also included Eris 2 and Pan 3. Operation Pan was thought to be dealt with but was found to be ongoing near the toilet and the sink. Operation Triton has been worked on by Andy extensively, but it is too early to declare it a success as of yet.

Result: Hephaestus ongoing. Eris 5, 6 and 7 have all been declared successful, though, for some reason, our immersion works by a completely different method than it did before Eris 2. Operation Pan ongoing.

Operation Eris has been officially declared successful, even if it was a completely unforeseen method.


Ongoing Missions:

Operation Hephaestus

Operation Pan

Operation Triton

The Parable of Austerity and Debt Forgiveness

Jesus tells a Parable about a man, 

who will be called Greece, 

who was burdened by billions of Euro worth of debt, and he had defaulted. 

There was nothing he could do, 

                                         no referendums, 

                                                                no negotiating tables, 

                                                                                               just debt and no way to pay it. 

He was called up for it.

Heading into the European Central Bank office he knew he was in trouble. He pleaded with Mario Draghi (President of the ECB) to give him more time and not kick him out of the Euro.

Having mercy on the man in tonnes of debt, the entire debt was written off!

There was no way the man could pay it, but there was kindness and mercy shown to him.

Later on the same day, Greece met Germany who owed him some rent money since World War II (supposedly),

when Germany said she couldn’t pay, Greece made Nazi posters and posted them on the Internet of Germany, publicly shaming her.

The European Central Bank got wind of the story and brought Greece back to another meeting.

Greece was told that even though all their debt had been written off, the ECB was disappointed with Greece for what they had done to Germany,

"Don't you know what you put on the Internet stays there forever?" Mario asked Greece. "All your debt was forgiven, but you could not pay it forward, and humiliated Germany. You wicked, wicked man."

Consequentially, Greece was forced to bring in reforms that created more austerity and worse conditions for living, until all the debt was paid off.

- Matthew 18: 24-34

Should Christians Vote Yes in May?

I clearly no longer agree with a younger, dumber, slightly brainwashed version of myself. But I wanted to leave this here so people can see how humans and knowledge and acceptance can develop in an individual.

Yay, more controversial topics that I feel like I don't want to talk about, but I have something to say on it and I think I should say it "out loud" If you look at this and think "Flip, that's long", skip to point three, it's the most important one and the actual reason I wrote this.

I have thought and prayed about the issue of the referendum on the 22nd of May 2015. I have thought and prayed about what I, personally, would vote; what I think about the entire issue; what I think other people should vote; etc. etc. For some time now I have come to some conclusions and for some time I have been debating putting them on this blog.

Previously I have written a post titled "TotD: Why I'm Against Gay Marriage", which can be found on: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2013/05/totd-why-im-against-gay-marriage.html. This post will nearly sound contradictory to that previous post. However, it is looking at things from a different perspective, I believe. I still stick by the majority of what I have said there.

The main [Christian] objections against Same-Sex Marriage are as follows:

1. The Bible condemns homosexuality.
2. Think of the children!
3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.
4. Religious liberty...

I will try and deal briefly with the first two of these but the third is the one I want to spend the most time on. The fourth may have to be its own post and I have sort of dealt with it before in "Response to the Asher Bakery vs Equality Commission.", which can be found at: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2014/07/response-to-asher-bakery-vs-equality.html

1. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Should that change how I vote?

Yes, the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. It condemns it in all its forms; going as far as to use words that are understood as the male person in a homosexual relationship that gives and the one who takes... Sorry for the imagery.

Based on the above should a Christian vote 'no'?

I don't think this fact has any bearing on what to vote in the referendum in May.

Firstly, if you personally have a problem with homosexuality and you think it is wrong, then don't be homosexual [I know it's not that simple, I don't want to get into it more here]. But really, how does a couple of young men, or a couple of young women getting married affect you personally? Yes, it affects them, yes as a Christian I believe that there are serious consequences for people who chose to ignore God [in any and every issue] and live their lives their own way, and yes there is a responsibility to warn people of the things that lie ahead if they keep on this pathway of ignoring God.

However, you cannot force Christian beliefs on non-Christians. We cannot make peoples' choices for them. As the cliched saying goes: "God's law for God's people." Christians cannot, and should not, expect people who do not share our beliefs and convictions to share our rules; where they are not also the laws of the State.

I get that it is a scary time for "Christendom". Christians have been in power in European society for many centuries; it has only been in the most recent ones that the power of the Church has begun to decline.

This terrifies Christians, however, we have to remember that for the first three centuries of the Christian Church it was the minority in society, and it flourished. People said it would die out, be wiped out, etc. It wasn't! The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire is probably one of the worst things that happened to the church, as it opened the doors for people to join the church who didn't believe in Jesus or give a monkeys about any Christian beliefs or doctrines, but had to because of fear of punishment from the Emperor.
Christians see the decline in Christian influence on society as steps backwards, however, "every crisis is also an opportunity", and instead of focusing on "maintaining the status quo" Christians should be asking what "new thing" is God doing in this new day, and how can Christianity be relevant in it.

With that said, Christians need to see a separation between society and the church, a separation that hasn't really existed for a long time; but certainly does now.

Therefore, I don't see the biblical understanding of homosexuality as a reason for voting no.




2. Think of the children!

Another big argument I have heard, from both Christians and non-Christians, against SSM is the children, and how they need both a male and a female parent. Many arguments have been made against this, it is not my interest to present them or join in the debate on their side. In my previous posting, listed above, item three is about children. I abide by that statement, it is my own personal conviction.

However,
The issue of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacies is not an issue that even comes into the referendum on 22nd of May. Many people, who really should do some reading before they vote, think it is.
In reality, you are not voting on the issues in the paragraph above. Unfortunately, Christian, you don't get a say in whether a homosexual couple are allowed to adopt children, or 'have' children at all. Believe it or not the President is about to sign all those things you are freaking out about into law, it will be law whether you vote yes or no.

You see, earlier in the year the Government brought forward what is called "The Children and Family Relationships" Bill. This grants homosexual couples rights of adoption and clears up some things about surrogacy and artificial insemination and all that jazz.

I think you know where this is going:
Therefore, the issue of the redefinition of the family, and the rights of gay people to "have" or adopt children is not relevant to the referendum this May. It should not come into your decision whether to vote yes or no.
There is no reason, based on convictions about what you think could happen to children brought up by two parents of the same-sex, to vote no in the referendum in May.



3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Finally, on to the main reason for writing this blog. Thanks for sticking with it.

The Sanctity of Marriage.

Again, I must reiterate my complete agreement with the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of marriage and express the importance of what a marriage is, how it is seen by God, and what it is a picture of.

In his book Is God Anti-Gay? [one of the best books I have read on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity, and written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and it's only 90 pages] Sam Allberry talks about why he doesn't agree with gay marriage.

He says: “Human marriage is a reflection of this supreme, heavenly marriage between Christ and his people. It is one of the reasons why Christians are resistant to allowing marriage to be defined in such a way as to include gay couples. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot reflect the union of Christ and the church, instead only reflecting Christ and Christ or church and church.” (22-3)

^Just so we are clear, I agree with him. I loved this so much that I took the time to type it out as I thought it would be useful later; and it was :D

So, here's the big revelation I have had recently, the thing I want to share with you all:

Civil Marriage is not the same thing as a Church Marriage.

In case you didn't get that, voting yes in May will not damage the sanctity of marriage. If you think that it does you are still living in a time when you think church and state aren't separate and you haven't yet 'divorced' them in your head.

Civil marriages have long ago ruined the sanctity of marriage. Take the below image as an extreme example of such:

Okay, if this blog wasn't controversial enough for you, it gets worse.

My belief is that every Christian could vote yes, or abstain from voting, without any conscience issues [I don't see any benefit in voting no, and I question the morality behind someone who would, having understood all that is contained in this post, besides for point 4 reasons]. Christian ministers, preachers and pastors should then opt to leave the civil registrars of solemnisers. [This is not the word sodomiser, in case anyone is getting irate at seeing it, a solemniser is someone registered in Ireland to conduct civil marriage ceremonies, the other is a derogatory term for a homosexual. It is not the latter I am using.]

For a long time, there has been a distinction between a Christian marriage and a civil one; perhaps it is time to make that distinction even clearer and a church leader should marry people in the eyes of God and the church, and a civil registrar could marry someone in the eyes of the State. I know, for a lot of smaller Christian churches in Ireland, that up until recently this was the case; I believe my own parents' wedding was conducted as such. Would it really be that difficult to go back to that system?

If we believe in the sanctity of marriage, as Christians keep talking about, then we should respect marriage enough to have nothing to do with civil marriages; which, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have been known to damage the sanctity of marriage [not that Christian ones don't as well].

This would also stop the foreseeable problem for ministers and church leaders when this referendum does return a yes vote [which it will, don't lie to yourself], of a church leader being asked to conduct an SSM, as they are on the list of registered solumnisers. They won't be on the list, so there is no problem.

Okay, but they are calling them 'Same-Sex Marriages", surely as Christians we cannot stand for that term being used for such a thing... and if we follow what you are outlining here, surely we should start campaigning for all civil marriages to drop the term marriage. Should that be our campaign?

If you feel very strongly about the damage to the sanctity of marriage that an SSM or a civil marriage is doing then I suggest a change of wording or terminology is required. However, marriage and wedding are English translations of biblical terms that are much older.

If you feel strongly about the word, perhaps it should be the original words you feel strongly about, not their translation.

Allow the State to have the words wedding and marriage. Let the Christian church, now pulled out from all civil marriages, instead use the Greek terms Gamos. [If it is that important to you].

Is the sanctity of marriage a reason to vote no in May?

Nope.

Should Christians do something to distinguish Christian marriages from Civil ones in order to protect the sanctity of marriage?

Yup:

• Separate from the civil distribution of marriage, creating a clear distinction.
• Do not Gamos couples in your church 'willy-nilly' as some Churches have a tendency to.
• Teach about the meaning of Gamos so that people will understand and will not enter into marriage lightly.

4. Religious Liberty.

I have one hesitation to voting yes in the referendum this May. That is religious liberty. If a yes is the outcome can a registered solemniser refuse to conduct a SSM if it is against their personal, and churches, religious convictions? Can someone who is not a church leader, but works as a Civil registrar?

These things are not being made clear, and are the things I would like to have cleared up. Is there a conscience clause in this referendum? I don't believe someone who does not agree with a wedding, be it between a couple of the opposite sex or the same-sex should have to conduct their wedding.

Were I a pastor I would not conduct the wedding of my non-Christian [or Christian] friends or congregants who have been cohabiting and sleeping together, unless they came to a point of repentance and understood that their actions were wrong [and they understood the thing they were entering into], nor would I conduct the wedding of two people of the same-sex. This, I believe, should be the attitude of the entire Christian community when it comes to weddings.

To a civil registrar I see the difficulties, but perhaps a clear distinction between marriage under God and a civil marriage would ease issues of conscience on providing a civil marriage for a Same-sex couple.

In Summary:

The reasons Christians have been giving for voting no, and opposing the same-sex referendum on 22nd of May 2015 are not valid ones, in least in what I can see.

The "Children and Family Relationships" Bill is legislating for gay couples to adopt and "have" children and so should not form part of the debate about the 22nd of May. Therefore the result of the referendum will not be a redefinition of 'the family'.

The sanctity of marriage is in tatters anyway. The Christian church needs to clean it up, and no amount of shouting at society that doesn't care what we say will do that. We need to remove the log from our own eye, treat marriage with the respect it deserves within the church first, before we can point to something like SSM destroying the sanctity of marriage. We need to distinguish Christian marriage from both opposite sex and same-sex Civil Marriages.

Questions about religious freedom, not about issues not pertaining to the referendum in May, need to be asked.

Do I advocate a yes?

Not necessarily. I don't understand why you would vote no, in my head it seems futile and pointless, and perhaps even cruel. This issue is to do with equal rights, in the eyes of the State, for our fellow citizens. It is wrong to oppress them, but it is also wrong to think of what they will be doing on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman under God. So...

I am advocating an abstention, at the very least, if you can't vote yes. I am also advocating a clearing up of the results on religious freedom a yes vote will have, instead of an argument about things not pertaining to the bill; and I am advocating some thought put into the idea of marriage [from a Christian perspective].

Now, can we finally focus on the more important referendum coming in May? The changing of the age to run for President from 35 to 21; that has results that will effect us all more than this Same-Sex Marriage one... The next President of Ireland could be some young 'whipper-snapper'.

The McMass Project (the McDonaldization of the Church)

Recently, there appeared on Facebook the following video

Since this was uploaded others have been talking about the success of having a Starbuck's coffee in their church building.

In Calvary, since I started going pretty much, we've been going through the books of Samuel (with a break for Christmas, 1 Thessalonians and 11 weeks of Psalms called mixtape.) This past week we have been looking at 2 Samuel 6, and I feel like it has something to say about the McDonaldization of the Church, to steal John Drane's phrase, though I am sure when he wrote his book he didn't even foresee someone suggesting opening a McDonalds in the actual church!

"David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart, with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.
And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David. But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
And it was told King David, “The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn."
(2 Samuel 6:1-15 ESV)

In the above episodes from 2nd Samuel we see two attempts at bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. In the first attempt to move the Ark King David, in his hastiness, followed the most recent practice, that of the Philistines. In 1 Samuel the Ark is captured in a battle and the Philistines have it for some time but God proves Himself better than their god, Dagon, and they start getting tumours, so they send the Ark of the Covenant back to Israel on a cart.
Mike (Neglia, teaching pastor, Calvary Cork for those who don't know), mentioned that it was like David knew about this and decided it would be faster to carry the Ark by cart then on some people's backs and he adopted the Philistine practice into the worship of the people of Israel, in a way God had said not to. The result: disaster, Uzzah died.

So, later on they try it again. This time though, David follows all of the proper procedures, he has the right people carry the Ark, he recognises its Holiness and his sinfulness and he worships God in the right way.

In the Wednesday night 'Deeper' study on the above passage the question was put to us about worship services and how you often hear people say 'I got something out of that'. However, a worship service is about us worshipping God, so the question was put do we think about how God feels about our worship services? Another question asked whether we do something similar to David and his people, do we see something in culture and attempt to adopt it for use in the church when really we shouldn't?

Okay, so what has this got to do with the above video? Maybe you see where I am going with this.

I believe, strongly, that the opening of a secular franchise in your church's building is comparable to the first of David's attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem. The Church often engages in evangelistic activities, coming up with new ways of making the church contemporvant (a mixture of contemporary and relevant that I like). This is not a slight to many of those ways.

I think having a restaurant in your church building that helps make a little money, which can be used to fund other ministries and do some outreach at the same time. Similarly, a coffee shop run by the church can be a nice idea too.

There is a difference between these things and a non-Christian franchise though. There is little in the Bible to tell us about how a Church should be run, there are things about elders and leaders, taking communion and being at peace with one another, but not much about how a Church service should look.

The one verse I can think of, and most churches I know of point to, is Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teachings, to the breaking of bread, to worship and to prayer."

This sets up a foundation for what the activities of the church should be: teaching, fellowship, worship and prayer. You can add evangelistic to that as well.
Yes, a McDonalds in your church would cover two of those five, but it could counter the other three.

When you buy into a franchise you buy into a worldview and a mentality and a mission statement. Buying into McDonalds' one is fundamentally opposed to a Christian worldview, mentality and mission statement. McDonalds are part of the consumerist, capitalist worldview. They exist to prey off of people's need to have things.
I believe it was John Ortberg who wrote about the deception of the Happy Meal, it doesn't actually bring lasting happiness.
McDonalds is also a business, and out to make money. It doesn't care about the ministry of the church. Add to that McDonalds initiative called "McDonalds Pride" and it should send most Bible-believing churches heading to the hills.

During Calvary's Wednesday study we actually talked about this very issue, as in writing this blog it has been on my mind, at one point in the discussion someone made the point that a person working in a church-owned McDonald's franchise would be able to evangelise from the cash desk. I said nothing at the time, but the obvious answer is that no, the person could not evangelise from the cash desk of the church-owned McDonalds.

Here's why:

1. When you buy into a franchise you buy into their ideals.
2. One of the statements a quick Google search on "McDonalds' proselytizing policy' shows that McDonalds forbids the promotion of religious beliefs.
3. You have bought into the rules of running a McDonalds franchise when you decided to buy it.
4. Evangelism can't happen.
5. People would be within their rights to complain if you did.

Imagine walking into a McDonalds and ordering pig and a Muslim man was serving you, and he proceeded to give out to you for eating Haram pork? Would you be happy? No.

Think of every experience of McDonalds you have, do you know anything about any of the staff from only attending the restaurant? No, because that is not the kind of experience McDonalds wants you to have. They want every McDonalds everywhere to be the same.

So, you might argue that people will know that your McDonalds is different because it is run by a church.

Again, here are the reasons this isn't true:

1. You buy into a franchise and into the rules that come with that franchise. You become McDonalds, not McDonalds becomes McMass.
2. McDonalds want every franchise of McDonalds to be the same, have the same look, feel, food etc. There is no room for individual expressions of McDonalds (the same is true for every other franchise).
3. When you buy into a McDonalds franchise (which starts at $300,000) McDonalds, according to their franchising website charge you rent for the building (as it is now looking like McDonalds and belongs to McDonalds). So the church building isn't even belong to the church anymore.

It's great that churches want to try something different in order to stay relevant in a changing, and increasing post-Christian, world. Buying into a secular franchise is not the way. The teleos or goal may be honourable and godly, like King David's was in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, or Uzzah's was in trying to catch it as it fell, but the means does not justify the end. God has commanded us how to worship Him, He has said things that give us a worldview contrary to that of capitalism and consumerism, to buy into those worldviews would be to bomb the rock on which Christianity stands.

Pastoral theology and pastoral care have been learning about this recently. Pastoral care, feeling the need to be professional, bought into modern psychological ideas. Over time this has led to a distance between the church and the pastoral carers. This distance has recently been recognised and efforts are being made to bring pastoral care and counselling back to the Bible and the Christian worldview.

I can guarantee, 100%, that a church that buys into a franchise, over time, will similarly move away from having their worldview grounded in the teachings of the Bible to that of consumerism and capitalism. It may not even be noticed, but in a century the Church will look back and wonder how they wandered so far from the Biblical truth. The McDonaldization of the Church (figuratively and literally) is not a good idea.