Love Wins - Rob Bell

Having read Rob Bell's new book, I've spent the last couple months watching videos and reading online reactions to the book and to Bell himself. Thus, I can't help but add my comments, if only for my sanity.

1. Rob Bell is not a Universalist.

This has been the primary accusation, the mounted defense against the perceived attack on Evangelicalism as we know it. However, I find that this claim, this misunderstanding should offend both Universalists and non alike. It misunderstands the idea entirely. Universalism proposes that truth is far more relative than one philosophy or religion could hope to contain and thus espouses doctrines of acceptance and universality. In particular regards to the subject of this book, it advocates universal salvation, an "all roads lead to the same destination" kind of mentality.

This is not Bell's claim.

First, Bell believes (in my opinion, of course) that the ethos of Christianity, the gospel, is unequivocally and entirely true. He believes it is the Truth. He states this throughout numerous podcasts, videos, and books including this one. He believes in one God, one Spirit, and one atoning, necessary sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. This, he argues, is the truth, the love story that God woos hearts with, the redemptive narrative that many reject.

Secondly, he believes that this Truth can be and has been rejected by thousands. By vehicle of sin, the human heart stands against God's grace. There are those that refuse God entirely and those who accept Him, despite their sin. These truths are echoed throughout the Love Wins book and appear prominently in the chapters on Heaven and Hell.

Thus, Rob Bell is far from being a Universalist as he supports one, singular, necessary Truth and one Way towards accessing that Truth. He believes in one God, the author and finisher of this Truth.

2. Rob Bell is not anti-divine wrath and judgement in his promotion of God's love.

Just because human doctrines interpreted from Scripture have structured the exact parameters, some of which Bell questions, does not mean Rob Bell is ignorant and hateful of God's justice.

First, Bell believes in Hell. He states that quite clearly. Certainly, it's a different Hell than many have espoused over the ages, although there have been those who have said similar things. However, he believes in divine retribution, a wrath that requires the cross and a wrath that punishes sin.

Second, Bell believes in sin. Humans have dishonored and rejected God's law and, thus they sin. This sin is punished now and in the future. Hell exists on earth and in the after-life and those who refuse God's gospel here on earth will experience divine punishment in the forms described in Scripture. Bell goes into some great detail on this in the Hell chapter and a few of the following ones.

Bell certainly champions God's love and God's sovereignty in "getting what he wants," namely human reconciliation to himself. BUT, he also believes in and propounds God's wrath, God's anger, and God's punishment.

It really troubles me that these two points among others have been mistreated in dealing with Bell's book. His views are different and they deserve to be discussed. Many are perfectly justified in disagreeing with him. But, please, show a little intellectual honesty and careful, spirit-filled integrity in this discussion. It'd be one thing if these criticisms were just coming from YouTube vloggers or the obligatory angry pastor...but for them to be coming from places like Southern Seminary, Piper and others who have such a strong influence on secular and Christian culture, is unfortunate.

That being said, I'd love to discuss these ideas more with anyone willing to respond. I feel strongly, thus the strong language, but I want to learn more about all this and come to a more informed and, ultimately, Godly perspective on all these events.

Creative Potential

How beautiful it is to watch the sun as it soars across the sky in early hours or to catch sight of it setting into the ocean's tide! How my soul swoons to the dashing thunder and the falling rain! The sound of the sea, the smell of trees, the taste of fresh fruit or a lover's kiss.

It's part of being human. These existential experiences we have in beholding and interacting with nature are core, central to our being. They point to the mysterious, to the ineffable, to the unattainable and, yet, inescapable essence of existence.

They point, if you'll permit my musing, to an indescribable and untamed creator. As streams of sunlight shoot across the sky in millions of endless directions, I can't help but imagine a much greater, much further, unmeasurable designer. One that knows and holds the boundaries of these seemingly boundless entities within nature and within humaninity. One that not only knows the endpoints of the sun's rays, but the depths of the human heart, of sorrow and of love, courage and fear.

It would (and does) seem to many that these things could not be more perfect. That the breathless experience of dew on roses or snow gathering in the heights of cascading mountains, of passion between two people, of the radient dance of the human community; reveals the perfection or at least perfection potential of current reality.

Religion tells a different story, though. Many speak of a time before, an earth that was, a proto-nature. The Judeo-Christian tradition tells of an Eden. In this lush garden, a garden that spanned hundreds of thousands of miles, existed the world's primal community of human and nature. It was a harmonious existence of pure perfection. All was as it should be. No pain, no fear, no death. In this ecosystem, the creator God lived in direct relationship with all others. It wasn't like the current predicament of God "here" and nature "there" or God in "heaven" and human on "earth." Perfect.

Something interesting happened next though, it it's not what you may expect. God, the gentle and kind leader of this society, commanded the two human beings to "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen. 1.28) This may not seem too odd at first glance. Especially to us as moderns who are not only acquainted with this verse and its meaning, but also with the whole reproduction system. We get that we have sexual organs and are inclined to use them and produce offspring. If we've spent any time in church, we also get that we're supposed to be "stewards," caring for and "subduing" the nature around us.

But, I want to challenge that interpretation. I think there's been a terrible mistake in translation and transmission. Through textual ancestory and cultural change, through countless Bible commentaries, studies, and formations...we've lost the true nature of this verse. Sure, it's just one verse in a few-thousand page text, but it's so much more than that. It's the first command given to humankind! The first of only two given in Eden.

My issue is with the word "fill." It is placed in the text in such a way that it logically follows the sentence before that speaks of our responsibility to reporduce (whether that's to be taken literally and/or figuratively, I can't say). In actuality though, "fill" is not the right word. The word is milaoo. It is the imperative form of the verb used to describe fullness. Not "to fill." The verb form in the text roots from the form used to say "The pitcher is full of water." There is a competely different Hebrew verb form for saying " I fill the pitcher with water." The second verb, "to fill," is active. The verb used in the Biblical text is the passive, the intransitive form that is adjectival in nature.

All that to say, the word is not "fill," but "be full." So God's not saying, simply, "fill the earth." God's saying to humanity, " make it so that the earth is full."

Wait a second! So, the perfect creator God made the world...in perfection...and yet told humanity "it's not full yet, make it full." God made an incomplete masterpiece...purposefully.

God made human beings "in our image." God made us to be creators. We were destined from the start of it all to co-create with God and, in so doing, to complete, to make full the world. We are hard-wired with creative potential.

It's not like the popular Christian narrative that speaks of our job as "restorers." Not exactly anyway. We aren't, in response to the Fall, in response to sin, aiming to restore the world back to a time before sin and pain. Creation was our job all along. It didn't start at the Fall.

The Fall messed things up bad. The entrance of human sin into the world severed us from God. God designed the "co-creating system" to work perfectly as we join him and learn how to create beautifully. So, we badly need to see and revel in the work of Jesus on the cross, the work that realigned us with God, the work that allows us to, once again, co-create and do so well. However, the Fall was not the start of human creative agency.

Creation is our identity. Whether it be through physical elements, ideas, relationships, family, etc... we are co-creators, co-dreamers, co-fillers of a beatiful masterpiece that God began long ago and left open for fulfillment, growth and change.

How captivating is the dance of humanity's God-ordained creativity! How soothing, how riveting the harmonies of instruments and lyrics of masterful musicians! How deep the strokes of brush touch the souls of those who view a finished canvas! How enchanting are the nimble motions of a skilled dancer or the speed and dexterity of a talented sportsman! How the poet's pen pierces deeper and higher than any warrior's instrument could hope to reach!

How marvelous is God, author and creator of all creation! Creation wrought through human hands, creation wrought by God's intent, creation made to fill the earth and make it full, to display and reflect the essence, the glory, of it's creator.

Namaste

"That which is of God in me honors that which is of God in you"

That's one common way of translating this Indian greeting that normally circulates in Sikh and Hindu religious cultures, as well as commonly throughout the east. What a cool way to say "hello."

I have a general sense that Christianity has much to learn from the practices and structures of other global religions and that sense is confirmed on a weekly basis as I participate in a pluralistic society. This greeting is just another example. Although I've heard it many times, it really struck me today. Reading through the book of James in the Bible, I came across his famous section on the tongue. He spends near half the book talking about the severity of common speech, its rarely-credited power. How, in a word, a man can damn another or completely exalt him. How words are indeed the greatest and most pronounced action in human society. Then he says this, " With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who have been made in God's likeness." (3.9)

It's a good reminder. It's certainly not a hidden message in the Bible. The Book is filled with moralisms on treating others with dignity and respect. Throughout, prophets and teachers remind the reader that "evil" originates in higher and darker places than the human soul; in principalities and structures. Thus, when we stand "against the world and worldliness," it is not a stance against individual people or even groups of people, but rather these mores and structures that have fostered evil on a global level for generations.

No, we should not interact with each other as fallen and evil. Then how should we understand and relate to each other? Namaste. "That which is of God in me honors that which is of God in you"..." That which God has graced unto me so that I can act and see rightly, that of God's love and God's image in me...acknowledges, upholds, and cherishes that which is of God's image and grace in you" Because, we are created God's image; we do behold and embody the glory of Jesus Christ. Because God has given us lenses through which to view the glory of his creation. This is the starting point of a conversation, of any interaction, of community in general. Namaste.

A word on my thesis...

While it's fresh in mind, I want to get this on paper for myself and for anyone who might be reading. I'm writing a 25,000 word undergraduate thesis this year and I think I now have some clarity on the outcome of my findings.

I'm studying a 2nd century "heretic" named Marcion of Pontus. He wrote a gospel and the people at the time accused him of taking Luke's gospel and reworking it to his pleasure. In other words, not only did he steal someone else's work, but he perverted it to his own ends and then disseminated it about. Recently, scholars have argued that perhaps it was Luke who copied and reworked Marcion's gospel. Perhaps Marcion was first.

What does this mean?

Well, Marcion was a docetist, which means he had a different view about Christ than the modern church would condone. He believed Jesus was only and fully divine. No humanity, no flesh. Although Jesus came to earth, it was only as a spirit. Thus, his ideas of the death and resurrection of Jesus are quite different. Because of this belief and some other beliefs he had, his gospel looked different from Luke's in a few places. No crucifixion narrative, no birth story, among other things. Also, not very many references to Jesus' physical lineage. He also did not write of Jesus performing many miracles since miracles were largely focused on a person's body, a shriveled hand or broken leg. Marcion believed that God wanted us to focus on the spirit and not the body. He believed that, since the body only leads to sinful pleasures and eventually decays anyway, its not important and actually evil. There's more to his theology but that's the skinny of it.

So, Luke gets a hold of this gospel and makes minor changes. If this is the case, then we have to assume that Luke at least had some kind of agreement with Marcion's views. Why would he grab a gospel of his opponent and use it as a source, while not even changing that many passages at all? So, under this hypothesis, Luke held similar theological ideas to Marcion.

What? A different opinion outside the "orthodox?" That cant be right. Well, what about different authors of the OT that emphasize different attributes of God? Certainly Moses may have held slightly different views than the author of Ecclesiastes or Joel different views than Hosea. We know from events recorded in Acts that some of the disciples had differing ideas. Can the Bible be said to be the Word of God and still contain a wide variety of theologies that all represent the Trinity that we believe to be God? I think so. I think that, despite Paul and Peter's differing understanding of Christ's justification, they both did amazing things for God. In fact, God used them beautifully in their own ways. Despite Paul and James' possibly different understanding of grace and works, they both did ministry together and both loved God. Does it make one of them wrong? Does it mean we have to meld them both into 1 view, doing herminutical gymnastics to make them say the same thing? I don't think so.

So, many different authors with one purpose: to glorify God. But, did they do this in different ways? Maybe God equipped each one for specific words and a specific ministry. Maybe Paul's particular theological understanding led him to courageously plant churches in many cities that Peter wouldn't have even felt were important. Maybe John understood God's love differently than Mark or Matthew. Even in Christian scholarship, historians separate the "synoptic gospels" and "John" and claim they have different perspectives.

What does this say to us today? Maybe our distinctions of denominations and doctrines and theologies are good as long as they lead to unity. The kind of doctrines that claim absolute authority and universal adherence, damning all others, may not be what Paul had in mind when he said "one gospel, one truth." Maybe the Gospel is multi-faceted and God works in different ways across different cultures of different generations. Maybe God reveals a particular part of his character more to one man while another comprehends a different part. Maybe God can be both predestining and will giving, not in the sense that both fit into one particular version of doctrine like the Reform definition of free will, but in the sense that many ideas from many doctrines point towards Jesus the Christ and his salvation.

The Gospel of Guilt

I've been reading C.J. Mahaney's "Cross Centered Life" recently and it has raised some questions. In the book Mahaney lays out what he believes to be some major roadblocks in the way of Christians truly centering their life on God. He doesn't talk so much about lack of devotion or not leaving enough time for prayer and bible reading. He doesn't point to lust or hatred. He doesn't even bring in the verses in Romans and the like that talk of our tendency as humans to pervert God's truth, to trade God's grace for human wisdom. No, he talks about guilt, condemnation, and legalism. These are the things, in his opinion, that most quickly suck our spiritual lives dry and de-center us from God.

He goes on to talk about how we might be free of these things, but I wonder how they got there in the first place. I'm sure there's a theological answer that can solve everything systematically with certain truths and scriptures, but I guess I'm wondering more practically (if that's not a wrong distinction). How is it that Christians have come to the place where guilt and condemnation guide our thought patterns? How is it that we've missed the deep essence of the gospel, freedom, and instead remain shackled to our past and present failings? How is it that this is the issue above everything else? (And it is the issue. Find me a Christian book store that isn't covered with more self-help books than Oprah's home library.)

I found an inkling of a possibility of a chance of a hope of an answer yesterday in John Piper's "50 Reasons Jesus Came To Die." Piper finds that we have a problem truly understanding the picture of a suffering savior that stands at the center of our gospel. We make movies and write books about Jesus on the cross, but we don't truly understand the complexity of the situation and, therefore, we don't understand the gospel that is to set us free and show us God.

This is what he says: "Let us not trifle with God or trivialize his love. We will never stand in awe of being loved by God until we reckon with the seriousness of our sin and the justice of his wrath against us."

Unfortunately, I found the inkling of an answer in refutation of this idea. You see, I think that it's this very idea and all of the sociological formations that have stemmed from it that have stifled the faith of many Christians, good Christian men and women that love God and long to understand his ways. Maybe this is not the way that Piper meant it, but this idea seems to convey to me that we must truly, deeply understand our great offense to God before we can begin to experience his love and grace towards us. In other words, it is our recognition of sin that brings us to a place of humility by which we may understand and accept God's grace.

To me, this sounds a lot like a seed from which guilt and condemnation naturally sprout. What is positioned here as the cornerstone of Christian freedom, for a proper understanding of God's love, seems more like rich soil for a dismal understanding of our hopelessness and unsalvageable depravity. Not that God's wrath and our own sin should be dismissed, certainly not. We must come to understand man's depravity and God's righteousness for us to in any way grow in sanctification, in purity and truth. BUT, to ground Christian faith and love in this grave sense of depravity seems to be the wrong move.

This idea doesn't start in Piper's small book. It can't even be localized to any man, church, or culture, because it's everywhere. The idea pervades every hymnal, every theological structure, every version of the sinner's prayer, sunday school education from kids to adults, etc. And, I believe it is the extensiveness of this idea and its formulation as the "Gospel," the "path to salvation," that encapsulated us such that we cannot escape from the guilt and self-hatred of our hearts and minds.

In my own experience, and certainly in my experience with others, it has been the exact opposite of this idea. Oh, how beautiful the world became when I realized that God loves me, purposefully and specifically. It was as if everything before were shadows, empty reflections of some false doctrine. I began to drink deeply in God's grace, to find joy in the simple faith of song and prayer. God was once a distant king to which I payed homage. Enthroned on a high hill past my eye's view, he made decrees and I followed for fear or hope of his justice. Suddenly, I was the maiden of his desire. As Kierkagaard explains it, despite my lowly status and his infinity, I was his heart's sole longing. Then, as if it were nothing, I joyously began to trust this king. Fully and continuously I surrendered myself to his leadership. From this began a process of purity, of understanding my depravity and allowing God to work righteousness into my brokenness. To daily trade in the filthy rags of a lost identity for white robes of my true nature, the man that God had been forming from the beginning. Although I speak in emotional rather than theological terms, I fully believe that this should be the image of sanctification that we proffer (and desire) as Christians.

Is this not the true nature of the Gospel? That God has called us beloved, beautiful, glorious, holy. That from this understanding of our true identity as his beloved, we can begin to understand our depravity, this false nature we carry around. Is it not trust that gives way to the process of God's sanctification? Should we desire God's love and grace or our own purity and holiness before him as of first order? What if we, as a church, sought out God's love as the pearl of great price, as the treasure hidden in the field, as the bread of life? And what if this became the center of our journey rather than a more grounded understanding of the "facts of the case" that have so distanced us from grace and entrenched us in guilt? Certainly I say this with great fear. Oh how I do not want to lose sight of God's disdain for sin, of his wisdom and truth...but I fear it far less than I do the loss of my identity as his beloved.

I pray that we would be set free from guilt and condemnation, from the legalism that so easily dominates our minds, by allowing God to love us. By truly accepting his love and adoration and by grounding our identity firmly in that first and before all else. That we would allow God to romance us, allow him to pursue us instead of making that our responsibility. Instead of, "God I love you so much that I'm changing everything for you", let us first say "God I accept your love, I swoon to your romance, I'm captivated by your grace and I can't get enough." That we would focus on God's love first and our depravity second. How clear our lenses for viewing and understanding the mysterious truths of the Gospel might become if we truly began to realize, culturally, globally, our identity as the beloved of God.

Seminary Essay

Tuesday nights are wild here at New College. Smoke and drink, Funk and funky wardrobes usher in the second half of the week. It’s 10 pm. Students crawl from various studying nooks about campus to the central Promenade for the mid-week ritual. Tuesdays are Drunk Funk. The mass invites to neighboring colleges, the smell of the substances, and the thumping bass beckon any and all to rest from work and join our community in clamor and revelry.

It’s not that classes don’t start at 9am and it’s not that we don’t have plenty of work to be doing (because we’re at one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country). It’s not even so much about the booze and weed, because those can be had individually and many of us don’t even partake in the substances. It’s because New College recognizes two things: the need for rest and the joy of community.

While students at Harvard and the like are drilling away at equations and provocative literature without reprieve, we party. Because of our hippie persuasion, we have found a deeper need than simply toil and spoils.

We need rest. We need to just be sometimes for the sake of being. Rest reminds us that we are not success, we are not our goals or our society’s goals. It reminds us that there are greater things; things like love, passion, purpose, joy.

New College (with a 80% agnostic or atheist population) has taught me that God is all about rest. God created us to be and by just being we glorify him. Why? Because God made us in his image. Because, before the fall, before “original sin”, there was original glory. Because, far beyond the work of our hands, we were made to be God’s beloved creation.

This reminds me of the countless meetings I’ve attended and heard about at New College; the food drives, the tomato picker’s rights campaigns, immigration reform, picketing for better treatment of the Sarasota homeless; Earth Justice Squad meetings, the All Power to the Imagination Conference, signing petitions for better waste management in our cafeteria, brainstorming sessions for ecological reform on a national level.

New College students get things done, God things, because of rest, because of choosing being over succeeding. And because of community.

Back to Drunk Funk. Amidst the ambiance of smoke and sound, there is a fraternity, a commonality. I’m a Christian, many are not. But we are all human. We’re all sojourners of this life. We talk, eat, and live together. We even pray together on occasion. Tonight we rest together.

Community. No agenda. No Stereotypes. No divisions.

This is my testimony. It has become my vision and desire for the church. Not that we sacrifice the Truth of Jesus the Christ, because he is and forever shall be the only hope for creation. But that we truly embrace eachother. That we love.

Glory to Glory

"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."

- 2 Corinthians 3.18

I was reminded again yesterday of how this whole God relationship to humanity works. So much ink is spent emphasizing God's greatness in comparison to our fragility, and rightly so. I don't think that God's true grandness can be captured in one phrase or book or speech. It must be said over and over and over again. How beautiful it is, though, to be reminded that God is so great that he has imbued his own glory upon us, fallen humankind.

It's so easy for me to read the Bible and listen to preachers and never get that. I get that I'm super-sinful. I can see that without any help, though the occasional reminder is good. I get that I need to turn from evil intentions to God's truth. But, so often, that becomes my identity. I take on the image of a whore, of a hopelessly blind man, of dust and ashes.

"from glory to glory." That's how this thing works. Because of God's great love for humanity, my identity is glorious. It is as though, to found my identity, I am to look daily "beholding in a mirror the glory of the Lord..." It is from this starting point, the mirror, that I can attempt the other side of the equation. With a proper understanding of my Justification, that I am glorious because of Jesus, I can see where Sanctification, molding and changing my character to fit God's, leads.

I only hope that, as a church, we will continue to uphold this image of "Christ in us." That we would found our identity not in the temporal man, the broken and weak self that we experience daily. That we would not embrace the shifting shadows of our wants and fears. Instead, that we would hold to the truth that our true self is in this person changing "from glory to glory." That we would embrace, in the mirror of God's greatness, the radiant image God has created in us.