Advent Week 4: John's Gospel

John's gospel, like Mark, fails to have a distinct advent story. In fact, John differs greatly from any gospel in the aspect that this godpel fails to really anticipate the coming of the Christ. Rather John is more concerned with saying something like this,"Hey, this Jesus Guy, He has been around all along, He has existed since the beginning, He was around before your father's father, and he will be around long after your kid's kids." 

It does however make sense that John begins differently, seeing as he was writing a book that was heavily influenced by Greek thought or at the very least written to people that were influenced heavily by Greek thought. And one of the things Greek thought  abhorred was new things. A bad advertising strategy to get Greek thinkers to buy your product back then would have been, "hey buy this item it is new and improved." Rather a better strategy may have been, "try the same old comfortable thing, it's the same as it was 2,000 years ago!" Sounds like some of our churches, so the concept shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

 But I digress, John really wanted to say, hey this Jesus guy has been around, and guess what, He is a light to the dark world, and he can't be overcome! Which is true, because as one preacher pointed out, dark and light never can compete against each other, because light will always shine in the darkness, and darkness can never exist once light becomes present. Now the question remains is this, where does Jesus shine? Where does His light exists? Well it is supposed to exist in His followers, after all His followers are a light that is not to be extinguished, and they are to be a great city on a hill. 

So what can we learn from this gospel in the season of advent? It's that yes we can wait for the Christ to come again in bodily form, but it is also that we need to live as Christ is still present as He has been from the beginning, and that we are to be the bearers of His light. So don't let advent be a time where we stop being a light because we are so focused on waiting for the light to re-enter the world. Rather, remember that Christ is still present  (as he has always been) and that He calls us to be His light, or do His will.

Advent Week 3: Luke

Being of low status is a common theme in the advent story that is found in Luke. Elizabeth was an outsider in her own family for not having produced a male child for her husband, Mary had not even enter the age of adulthood when she found out her pregnancy, and the shepherds were men who were offered the first chance to worship the new savior born into this world, despite being considered by their religion to be dirty people and therefore unfit to participate in temple worship.  The fact is this, Luke continually shows how God uses those of humble status to be a part of His plan.

But why is this humility important? Why are the humble raised up, while the haughty are lowered down? I believe that only in humbleness do we find our need for Jesus, only in humbleness can we truly accept him. Think about if for a minute. If one were to think they are great, that they can control those beneath them, that they are powerful, then why the need for a savior? There isn't! However, when one comes to realize how sinful they are, how much of a distortion they are of God's original intention, then they realize their need of a savior.

 But here is the important thing that we must remember as Christ followers, this humbleness is to never stop, we are not to become haughty in knowing that we are now part of God's chosen while others are left out, yes even the haughty; even those darn political opponents who are on the side of Satan; even those who kill Christians; even those who kill babies; even those who kill the image of God in general; even those who lie, steal, fornicate, lust; even those who (insert egregious sin here). Okay, so you get the point by now. The reason we have no reason to become haughty ourselves is this:our newfound glory (some newer than others) is the result of nothing we have done, but is rather the result of someone else's action. 

So Really, what do we have to brag about? Very little to be exact, the only thing we have to brag about is how great our God is, as opposed to how great we are either as an individuals or as a church. The truth is this: that even though we have been and are continually raised up by God, we are in effect still sinners. No matter how much we grow, we still break the Law of God, and we will until we are glorified after our deaths.  And therefore to judge/ look down upon others is quite a rather ridiculous action. It would be like trying to remove a speck from someone else's eye while having a huge stick protruding from our own (don't praise me for my originality in that  think someone else already used that image). Anyway, you get the picture right? I hope so.

So as we await for the coming of Christ in this advent season, let us remember this one important thing, to walk humbly, because that is one thing that the Lord requires of his people.

Advent Week Two: Matthew 2

Chapter 2 of Matthew is a story that compares and contrasts two groups of people who were supposedly awaiting the coming of the Messiah. On one hand we have the outsiders, the Magi (often times today referred to as kings), and on the other hand we have the religious establishment of the Jewish faith: the chief priests and the scribes. One group searched out the Messiah, while the other passively stayed behind despite hearing that the Messiah had been born. One group wished to honor the Messiah, while the other wished to help Herod in his evil plan. And one group wished to recognize the importance of the Messiah, while the other wished to hold onto their status in society. 

Ironically, in this story, it wasn't the insiders who chose to search, honor and, recognize the Messiah, rather it was the outsiders. And what makes it rather humorous, was that not only were the Magi outsiders, but they were also a  group of men who would have been recognized as being false diviners (Deuteronomy  18:11, Isaiah 2:6; 47:11-15). Yet despite being false diviners, somehow YAWEH had imparted truth to these men, and as a result they were the ones who recognized the birth of the savior rather than those who were supposedly the true diviners. As a result they put the Christ in his proper place, a place where he received honor, a place where they put him above themselves as they offered royal gifts, a place of great importance in society and their lives.

 The religious insiders on the other hand, who had the "true" knowledge of God totally missed the boat on this one. They wished to hold onto their status here given to them by the king(It should be noted that many of the religious leaders of the day had been removed by Herod and replaced by those of Herod's choosing, thus making them servants of the government as well). As a result they likely sided with Herod out of fear that if Herod was removed by this new King, they in turn may lose their status. Another possibility is that they may have been motivated by fact that if they angered Herod that he would remove them from their offices. Either way this resulted in putting their good above God's good, as they chose to put their honor above God's honor, and they chose to put their importance above God's importance.

So what can we learn from this, we learn that serving Christ is not about us, it is not about our gain. As John the baptist stated, "He must become greater, I must become less." However in our culture (just as it was in this story) something like going to church has often become about us rather than God, and some churches even reinforce this idea through marketing techniques meant to make the church fit the needs of people, rather the desire of God's will. The result of this is that we have some people who attend churches in order to benefit themselves rather than to benefit God. In other words, often times church becomes about us, it's about what we can attain or achieve and hold onto, rather than what God can achieve. The same held true with the chief priests, the scribes, and Herod. 

So this season, As we wait and celebrate the return of the Christ, let us be reminded that we are not to be the religious establishment found in Matthew 2 but rather we are to be Magi. People who spend their lives in worship, a worship where we desire to seek, honor, and recognize Christ's importance.

Advent Week 1: Mark 1:1-15

This week begins the season of advent, a time where we recognize the first coming of Jesus and a time where we anticipate His coming return. During this season, I will look at each one of the gospels and how they each anticipate the coming of Christ. To begin with,  I will look at the first gospel that was written within our scriptures, The Gospel of Mark.

Some of you are probably wondering why I am starting with Mark, some of you probably have no clue as to why beginning here may seem problematic. Well, just so everyone is on the same page, there is no Christmas story in the book of Mark. Which has to lead one to wonder, why would Mark leave this part of the story out? How could Mark not mention sweet baby Jesus, the three kings, the shepherds, the angel, the manger, the livestock, the proclamation of the Christ? Well, I think Mark does include the proclamation of the coming of the Christ (which to me is the important part of the story), just not from the angel to Mary, but rather from a prophet to the the multitudes.

Mark's book begins with a crazy man who eats locusts, wears camel hair, and lives in the wilderness. that's right, the wilderness, but that hardly seems noteworthy does it? Ahh but it is. See the wilderness was a place where one was unprotected from both earthly dangers such as thieves and other bandits, as well as unearthly dangers such as spirits. The fact that this crazy prophet could survive a ministry out there was a testament to his authority. But there is more to the wilderness aspect of Mark's gospel, see the  people were coming out to the wilderness in droves to see John the Baptist. This too is noteworthy. For in doing so they were looking away from the center of their world and out to the peripherals. To understand this, we must understand that in John's day, the whole of society was focused on center of the nearest major city. For these people that would have been Jerusalem. And at the center of this city would have been the temple, along with the economic and political centers. So obviously, something as important as the announcement of the Christ would come from here, right? 

Not here, not in this situation. Here the people had to turn outward, to the wilderness, where only bad things could happen, where only the degraded and unclean lived. This is where the masses would have to turn to hear about the coming of the Christ. The proclamation would not be issued by the priests, the rich, or the ruler. Rather by some wild man, who was able to see the vision of God, who was able to recognize that God had come to earth as a man, and who knew his place in relation to the Messiah.

So what does this say to us during the season of advent. Maybe the book of Mark is a reminder, maybe Mark is telling us that Christ can be found in the most unlikely of places. Maybe he is reminding us that we have to travel away from the normal places that we love and cherish to witness the Christ. Maybe we have to turn away from things that seem important to see Jesus rather than try to fit Jesus into these things at first. Maybe the appropriate way to wait for Jesus is to turn away from politics, turn away from consumerism, and even turn away from what an organized religion has taught us, in order to experience Christ in His fullness. But not for good.For just like the multitudes in Mark had to turn back to the city, so we too will have to play a role in our society and our churches, but when we return we will have seen and experienced Jesus fully, and maybe with Jesus' help, we can transform these places, and the way we look and do politics, economics, and yes even religion. 

So during this week of advent, maybe it is time to step out of your comfort zone and examine how Jesus has come into our lives, and as a result of this how we can prepare the way for Christ to do his work in the centers of our society, as opposed to the center of our society telling us how we ought to function. While at the same time anticipating a new Heaven and earth upon his return.

Heresy perhaps, but worth thinking about...

While reading "Against Celsus" by Origen, I came across Origen questioning: Why should one teach against a person being transformed to a good person even if he can not come up with any rationale for doing so? (Rough paraphrase I know, but check out Book One chapter 9.) While pondering this thought, I then asked myself, is this how Christ Followers should think of others who find ways of transforming themselves into better people, even if their way does not involve giving credit to Christ. Unfortunately I never came to a firm conclusion, but what I came up with was this.....

If all good things come from God, then if man finds a system of belief that teaches him to DO good that is apart from the religion of Christianity, is that ok? Will God honor the man's commitment to such a belief? For the Bible states that "every perfect gift comes down from heaven" (James 1:17), and is not wisdom a gift? It was a gift to King Solomon as we learn in 1st Kings, therefore we must conclude that wisdom is  most definitely a gift that comes from God. And Scripture teaches us that only God is good. Thus one can conclude two things: First is that God as a good personal entity, would only impart good wisdom to humanity, and second that good and perfect wisdom can only come from God, for only God can only know what good is seeing as He is the only good being in all of existence.

Therefore a Christian must wrestle with the fact of how do ungodly/pagan people do good? How do they come up with teachings that promote good? How does someone like Ghandi teach the same non-violence and love for others that Jesus taught during his time on earth? I find such a thought highly perplexing, maybe it means that God is working in ways that we could never imagine, maybe He is reminding us that not everyone who calls Jesus Lord will be saved, but rather those who do the Father's will. And sometimes this will of His is done by those who do not call Jesus Lord. Maybe this should humble those who claim to follow Christ, maybe being a follower of Jesus is more than saying the "right" prayer, or calling someone Lord without believing it. Maybe its about understanding that there is a higher power who shows us grace, and that we in turn are to show grace to others in return (Matthew 18-23-35).

So what happen to those who unknowingly serve Christ as in Matthew 25, are they condemned to Hell for all of eternity? Or does grace abound? Traditional teaching/interpretation of the Bible tells me tells me that the first scenario is what occurs, however the Words of Christ seem to tell a different story in the gospels. Maybe it is possible to serve someone/thing else while at the same time you feel you are serving Christ, and maybe the reverse is true also.

To end I must say I neither have the answer to the above questions above, nor do I believe that I will ever have the answers until the end of days. But what I do know is that Christ blood was shed for sinners, the question then becomes this: When it comes to being covered in the atoning blood, is it the words that matter, or the actions that matter, or somehow both?

Money, Greed, and God review: Part Three

                

                Sorry I have not posted in a while. But I have been spending quite a few hours helping my dad start a bread distributorship. Hopefully I will be able to post more regularly. Here is the review for Richards’ second chapter of Money, Greed, and God.

Richards’ refreshingly starts his chapter by pointing out the fact that if one were to read the Bible straight through, that the person would realize that caring for the poor is essential to the Biblical message given to humanity by God. Richard’s backs up his claim with numerous passages from both the Old and New Testaments. He then goes on to claim that in the end, one’s intentions won’t matter but whether or not one is successful in helping the needy. Richards then goes on to claim that many of the things we do, both as a nation and individuals, to help the poor are actually unsuccessful. As a result our failed efforts, as individuals and as a nation, are meaningless when it comes to our spiritual relationship both with God and with others. Richards then accuses those who are willing but incapable or helping as acting out so that they will feel good about themselves. To end the introduction section, Richards then tackles the issues that he believes actually hinder than help the poor, such as: the living wage, fair trade, foreign aid, and government run health care.

                To end the chapter, Richards’ goes on to say that it is not the government’s job to provide assistance to the poor. Rather it is the job of the church, the family, and the neighbor to help those who are needy. He then goes on to say that the Federal Government cannot afford to help out the needy. To do so he points to the fact that government spending has gone from 20 dollars a person in 1789 to 10,000 dollars a person in 2007 (figures adjusted for inflation). He then writes in a way that seems to shoulder the $9,980 dollar difference on welfare policies.

                I have some issues with Richards’ viewpoints in this chapter concerning the economic policies which he chose to look at. In fact, I could possibly write a whole chapter of a book on them. However to make things short, I am going to look at just one of them briefly, the Living Wage. In this chapter Richards’ completely trashes the idea of a minimum wage. Now, I am in agreement that the minimum wage laws are ineffective. However, the ineffectiveness does not stem with the minimum wage law itself but in reality the issue stems with those who are forced to pay the inflated wage. What the minimum wage law attempts to do is the force employers to pay a higher percentage of profits that they receive from their goods and/or services. However, this is not the case, rather than having to pay a higher percentage, business charge more for their products to cover the difference, thus making the value of the dollar less. Yet, it is interesting that Richards’ attacks the government as being at fault for causing the inflation. He puts no fault on those who already have plenty who continue to help cause inflation because they are unwilling to share more of the wealth that a company makes with the workers who help make the company what it is.

To me it is as if Richards’ is standing around, watching a guy getting punched in the stomach repeatedly which results in the guy having a stomach ache. Afterwards it is as if Richards sees another guy, who had no idea what initially happened, giving the guy some Pepto Bismol for his stomach ache. After viewing this all it seems as if Richards’ chastises the person doing something pointless rather than trying to stop the other person who is actually causing the problem by punching the guy in the stomach in the first place. In short YES! Setting a minimal wage is pointless, but it is only pointless because those who already have more than enough to live well, and sometimes more who fail part with some of their wealth in order that other people who make the company successful can have enough money for essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and medical care. In other word’s Richards’ is sending out a rallying cry against the faulty effect rather than the cause. But if we eliminate the cause, then we eliminate the effect at the same time.

I feel like Richards is fighting the wrong issue here. Maybe instead of rallying against the government, he should be rallying against those who feel they need to make grossly more than much of the rest of the world and against corporations that fail to pay enough money to their employees to live above the poverty level. Now, I am sure he would say that those at the top deserve more than those at the bottom, and I would agree with him. But the questions we ought to ask is this, how much more do they deserve, and how little do the people at the bottom deserve.

                As for his feelings that the role of the government is not to help the needy, I have MAJOR issues with Richards’ thinking. Richards’ seems to say to shoulder the burden of helping the needy on the church and family only. However, if this was possible, why are where we are today? I believe that if the church and family were capable of shouldering the needs of everyone that they would have done so by now. Now this is not to say that the church and family does not try to help out the needy, but rather that they are unable to do so and that no matter how hard they try, to feel that they can get rid of all of society’s ills is unrealistic, or to use Richards’ language, “it isn’t prudent.”

                Finally, my last issue is how Richards’ uses the stat that we are spending about $9,980 more than we were in the late eighteenth century as a reason to completely annihilate welfare. It’s an unfair argument, because there are other factors that contribute to the high rate of expenditures. Things like military budgets, which currently is the largest piece of the pie in our national budget. Now, I am sure we could lower military expenditures, but let’s be honest; the cost of military technology was much lower in 1789 than it was in 2007. I am sure that a mini ball and a rifle cost much less than an assault rifle and armor piercing bullets. I am sure a cannon and cannon ball cost much less than a patriot missile or a smart bomb which are loaded with technological advances that our patriots in 1789 could not have even dreamed of. Or we could look to the pay that our political leaders receive today as compared to 1789. In 1789, there was no salary being paid to the president as opposed to $400,000 a year today. Not to mention that during the early years of the presidency, all the extra expenditures came out of the president’s personal pocket and wasn’t the tax payers burden.  The fact is, that there are many reasons why the government needs more money today than it did over 200 years ago, but to blame welfare programs as being the main reason is far from truthful.

In the end, I guess my problem is this, if Richards’ knows that God is concerned for the poor in the Biblical witness, why is he so willing to cut programs that deal with helping the poor, and turn a blind eye to the other areas where we spend money extravagantly? 

Christianity, Patriotism, Nationalism; do they conflict with one another or do they relate to one another?

Been a little busy lately, and I promise to get back to my review of Jay W. Richards' book. But I wanted to come back with a bang, so here goes. . . 

About ten years ago during a National Holiday weekend, I remember our church singing a patriotic song. Upon the beginning of the song people began to stand up and you could almost see a pride well up in many of the congregants as we sang these patriotic songs, especially within the veterans. Now, most of us would think that this would be a non-issue, and in many churches they would be proud of their patriotism. But while many members or many churches would be proud, I was disgusted, because in our church we had the policy where we left standing during worship up to each individual. What ultimately happened when we left it up to the members whether or not they should stand was that they would choose to remain seated throughout the entirety of the service. However, this one day, when we started playing and singing patriotic songs, the entire congregation stood and gave reverence to the United States. However, on every other Sunday throughout the year when we sang songs that were only aimed towards our love and reverence for the Triune God no one ever choose to stand. In other words, our congregants were willing to honor our nation in a way that they refused to honor God, our country was worth standing up for, but our God was not!

This type of thinking is now playing itself out in another arena, as Goshen College (a small Mennonite University near my home) is now refusing to play the national anthem before sporting events after trying it out for the past year. So why is playing the national anthem a problem for Goshen College? Because our National Anthem is a song about a battle in the war of 1812 and the Mennonites abhor war. This is due to the fact that they are serious about the pacifist principles taught by Jesus within the scripture. Now, this is not the first time that a principle of the Mennonite faith has come into conflict with the American culture. For years the school has refused to fly an American flag with the belief that nothing should be above the cross. This was a major problem when 9/11 occurred and one of my friends was doing some electrical work at the school. The workers for the electrical company were so upset that they hung a flag at their worksite they had on the school grounds as a way to protest Goshen’s refusal to fly a flag after such a horrific tragedy. This stance that Goshen College stubbornly stood by was a symbolic way to show that God should come before everything else, including our nation.

So how ought we as Christ followers to live in a society? Can we be patriotic and followers of Christ? Or does one trump the other? First, we have to look to what scripture calls us Christians who live in the world. Peter calls us exiles and aliens in I Peter. In other words, we as followers of Christ do not belong to the world for this world is not our home. Rather it is just where we reside for the time being. Rather our home is with our Father, and while we are in fellowship with him thanks to the actions of His Son, and the work of the Spirit. But despite this, one day we will be called to our eternal home.

So this means that as followers of Christ, we need not care about the current society that we live in, right? No, actually we are told by another biblical figure in the Old Testament that those in exile ought to strive to make their new residence a great nation, and that we are to live in a manner that helps our current residence prosper (Jeremiah 29:7).  

But the question then becomes, how can we help our society prosper? To do that we must look back to see how the Jewish exiles helped make the nations that they lived in prosper. I feel that there is no better place in the Bible than to the first six chapters of Daniel, where we are given detailed information on how four young men (possibly three) lived as faithful servants of God and of the empire in which they found themselves. The interesting thing here is that while they had no qualms about serving the empire that conquered them, they made sure that they were going to do it on their own terms; or perhaps more accurately stated, on God’s terms. They made sure that in serving their new land that they would first and foremost serve their god, YAWEH. And the thing is, these men ended up being key players in their new home and took on roles that could help the nation to prosper despite not honoring the gods or practices of their new nation that conflicted with YAWEH.

 My friends, this is what we must make sure we do when we serve God and country. We must make sure God is served first and foremost, and then understand that by serving God, we actually serve our country. This was the order that these four men took in Daniel, God first and nation second. This is what I think the Mennonite administration is trying to convey in their abandonment of the National Anthem. There are plenty of teachings of Jesus that promote pacifism and if we are going to take Jesus seriously as a whole, then we must acknowledge that Jesus taught us to love others, not just those who are close to us, but those outside of our ethnicity, and even those who are our enemies. So how is bombing our enemies, or even glorifying the bombing off our enemies through a song glorifying Jesus? Quite frankly it isn’t! This is something that our Mennonite brothers and sisters take very seriously. To them killing is wrong no matter the circumstance. And to glorify violence is to go against the teaching of God, and as a result is putting our worldly standards above God’s standards. However, just because they fail to play the anthem does not mean they do not want the nation to prosper. In fact the reverse is true. I feel that the Mennonites would love nothing more than for this nation to prosper. However, they are not going to blindly accept the standards of this nation which glorifies violence in its anthem. Therefore, the administration is seeking out another way to promote this nation, a way that is also glorifying God as well. And as Christ followers we too ought to make sure that we always serve and glorify our country through God’s principles and not vice versa.

Reaction to the Death of Bin Laden

So I have recently just heard the news that Osama Bin Laden is dead and I am kind of confused as to how I feel. Part of me is happy that he personally can not harm those who are innocent any longer. Part of me is worried that he will become a martyr and many troops and civilians alike will be at risk, as his followers may retaliate. And a third part of me mourns for the death of a man, a man who was someone's child, a man who was not just someone's child, but was a creation of God. The fact that unless there was some miraculous conversion before his death means there is a good chance that he will unlikely spend eternity in Heaven with God.

Despite all of this confusion as to how I should feel, what I do know is that more than likely God was out looking for a sheep, one sheep out of a hundred, and that sheep has died. God more than likely was unable to save this sheep in this instance, because this sheep kept wandering and did not head the voice of its shepherd. I feel that God desired to have a relationship with Bin Laden, but it seems more than likely that Bin Laden rejected that relationship. For this I feel God mourns.

One other thing I know is this, a life is gone, no matter how evil that life may have been, dancing and celebrating in the streets is the wrong response. After all, the Arab world, who views the United States as the personification of evil, did the same after the attacks of 9/11. And if you were like me, it only angered me even more. But the only outcome of a similar reaction will only bring us down to the level of those who hate America, a level where I would rather not go.

So we can be happy that justice has been served, but please, don't be happy that a person had to lose their life, very likely their eternal life. I know that God mourns for the lost soul, and because He mourns, I mourn too.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 2

Chapter 1: Can We Build a Just Society.

Summary 

            Richards begins this chapter with a journey into his past. He traces his early flirtation with communism/socialism back to his time in a youth group with a youth pastor who was more concerned with social issues of the day more so that with the death of Christ. This is followed by an account of how we was taught communistic/socialistic principles at a college that was once Christian, but by his time had turned into a school that was more Liberal Protestant. His brief biography ends with the admission that while he loved communism/socialism as an ideology, reality soon got in the way of the intellectual ideology.

            Richards follows his history with communism/socialism with a history of communism beginning with Marx and ending with the fall of the U.S.S.R., with Richards mainly focusing on the deaths that leaders like Mao and Lenin caused. Richards then moves on combat the belief that the early church and the early pilgrims were in fact communist, by stating that the early church voluntarily gave away their possessions and that even Paul instructs that people are to work for their own food. Finally he states that communism in the early Pilgrim colony was a failure, and even they had to turn to private ownership.

            In the end Richards says that the reason communism/socialism fails is because it tries to bring Heaven to earth with God. Richards states that only God can bring about his Kingdom, and that any human attempts to bring about total equality will result in the suffering of people. But this does not mean we are to sit idly by and wait for God to bring the Kingdom, but that we have a part in it as his church. Then Richards says to compare capitalism with Heaven would be wrong, rather we must compare it to the extreme of communism and by doing so we will see that capitalism is the best answer.

Concerns/Questions

            My first concern is that Richards essentially tossed himself a slow mush ball to hit out of the park rather easily, rather than attempting to hit a fastball by taking on the much tougher criticisms of capitalism, or even less extreme versions of socialism in this chapter. The position that Richards combats is such an extreme position of communism that less than one percent of Americans agree with. A statistic given by Richards himself! I mean come on, anyone who wants U.S.S.R. or Chinese style communism/socialism is either a fool or has their head in the sand! Or maybe there are other options, but the point is that anyone can see that Lenin and Mao’s version of communism was extremely deadly; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What Richards is doing is attempting to make it look like anyone who supports anything but capitalism is supporting death and suffering. But the truth is that this is unfair, because not all people who criticize capitalism support Maoism or Lenin style communism, heck they won’t even support Marxism. Instead they realize that while capitalism is better than communism that capitalism has its own issues, issues that they desire to be fixed. Now Richards’ tactic is widely used by people from many different backgrounds, so let’s not act like Richards is the only person ever to do this. I am however more disappointed that a person with the credentials that Richards has would resort to such a tactic.

            That being said, I love that Richards brought in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” For a second I was beginning to get scared that Richards was going to pull out the, “this is how it is and it can’t be changed until the Lord comes card.” However, in this section he only declares that this type of thinking is wrong, he fails to go into how we ought to live in the “Not Yet but Already Kingdom.” However, I am guessing that he will do that in other parts of the book. So I am not giving up on the hope that Richards will show how capitalism ought to work in the “Not Yet/Already” time period.

I do have one question though. I wonder what Richard’s view of human nature is. He implies that humanity will refuse to work unless made to do so and that is why communism/socialism fails. However, that’s about all he says. I wonder if he ever takes into account the view that it is in the nature of humans to desire mammon, or stuff, and to sometimes obtain it at any cost. I mean mammon is something that is a rival to God when it comes to what we worship. Also God knew that humanity had a coveting problem when he gave us the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wonder how coming to the realization that humans by nature like things, shiny things, expensive things, fun things; and are willing to do immoral acts (not necessarily illegal) to achieve such things, would affect his views on unregulated capitalism.

Money, Greed, and God Review: Part 1

So I promised a book review on Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism is the Solution and not the Problem by Jay W. Richards. I thought it would be interesting to hear exactly how capitalism could be the solution, because honestly capitalism has caused some major atrocities in the world. Things like slavery, imperialism, and wars. To be fair, however, it has brought good as well. capitalism has allowed people the ability to have a say in who they become, rather than relegate them to the role they were born in. It is also only fair to say that true socialism/communism which seems to be the either/or alternatives to capitalism, have created many more atrocities than capitalism and has not achieved the success that capitalism has. I do need to clarify my statement above by saying that true socialism/communism is not what Americans like to call socialism that occurs in England or France, but is rather the Socialism that has occurred in places such as the U.S.S.R. or The People’s Republic of China that was employed on the road to becoming Communism, which then failed miserably.

Anyway, I am going to review this book one chapter at a time. This is due to the fact that it seems to have a lot to chew on. So I am not going to try and give my impressions on the whole book till the end. Rather, by reviewing each chapter, I hope to help take you through my thoughts and impressions as I journey through the book. So first, a little about the author.

Jay W. Richards comes from the Discovery Institute of Science and Culture. Probably one of the most right wing of right wing groups when it comes to religion and politics. He has co-authored at least four other books, two of which seem to deal with the issue of Intelligent Design. He has two Masters Degrees in Theology, Divinity, and a PhD. in Philosophy and Religion.

Introduction Review

Summary 

In the introduction, Richards begins by stating all the evil results that are visible due to a capitalistic society from ecological issues to exploitation issues. However, Richards believes that pastors do not have the right to speak out about economics, at least when it comes to capitalism, because they are foggy on the issue. Richards then states that he will attempt to work through the fog by debunking eight myths about capitalism: The Nirvana Myth, The Piety Myth, The Zero-Sum Game Myth, The Materialist Myth, The Greed Myth, The Usury Myth, The Artsy Myth, and The Freeze-Frame Myth. Richards states he will address each myth in its own chapter. He then finishes the introduction by asking the question, how is wealth created? He states the economists are unable to answer the question, but a Christian can. This is because material wealth is created by something immaterial, it is created through Spirituality. This is because we are created in God’s image, which includes creativity and by being free to use our creativity, we can create wealth. In the end according to Richards, a good Christian should be a good capitalist.

Questions and Concerns

I only have two concerns with this introduction, of which only one is of great concern, that being Richard’s idea that pastors are not qualified to speak on the issue of economics, at least when it comes to critiquing capitalism. Richards in fact picks up on a quote used by Rick Karlgaard, in which Karlgaard equates pastors who speak about economics to being eunuchs who speak about sex. I feel Richards is way off with his comparison. The first of which is that everyone who lives in a society is a part of the economic structure of that society. They may experience the structure from a different viewpoint than others, but they still experience the structure, and it is important to understand how an economic system affects people at all levels of a society, whether that viewpoint comes from an intellectual economist, a pragmatic economist, a pastor, a billionaire business owner, a small business owner, a high scale wage earner, or a small scale wage earner.

Another reason that I feel Richards is due to the fact that some pastors can even witness both the negatives and positives that an economic system produces on a global level, especially some of the pastors who are able to use their position to travel the world through the use of mission trips and see how economic on one side of the world can affect the economic system on the other side of the globe in areas that are often ignored.

Finally I feel he is wrong in his assumption, because economics is a huge issue in the scriptures. Almost one third of Jesus’ parables deal with economics, Jesus speaks more about mammon than he does of Heaven and Hell, and approximately 1 of 7 verses in Luke deal with money. Therefore, it is my opinion that pastors should have the right to speak on issues of money and ought to speak about money, especially when the topic is on how one ought to spend and earn money in a moral capacity.

A smaller issue that I have with Richards is that I don’t think he acts very kindly towards those he disagrees with. It only took him only two paragraphs to call a group of people that he disagrees with a condescending name. Now it was just “snooty liberals” but for someone who is writing a book as a Christian, I found it very unloving and very un-Christ like. I mean it is one thing to blurt it out, but it is another thing for someone to write it in a book, and go over it numerous times and allow it to remain in there. To me it shows bad scholarship from someone with a Ph

I do have some questions however. First, Richard’s says that capitalism does not promote greed. However, I wonder what he would have to say with the fact that during our last economic boom, the middle class did not gain any wealth. I also wonder how he would explain the fact that since the 1970’s the middle class has relatively maintained the same level of wealth while the upper classes have gained wealth exponentially. Now to be fair, that is not to say that capitalism has to be based on greed. But I would say that in our current society, capitalism does result in greediness. I hope he addresses these issues later on in the book.

            My last question is how does Richards come to the belief that Christians ought to be capitalists? I have heard some people make this claim, but I have never been convinced that they are right. To be fair, I have heard people claim that Christians ought to be socialist/communist. But then again, they have not convinced me either. I operate under the belief that a Christian does not have to be one or the other, rather the Christian must be willing to give to their neighbor, whether that is through the state or through charity. I am however sure that Richard’s will address this question in the book.

Take up your cross. . .

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” These are the word spoken by Christ to his disciples that are sandwiched in between Peter’s confession of Christ and the transfiguration if Christ in the gospel of Luke.  They are such powerful and gruesome words, imagine being one of the disciples who were with Christ on that day he uttered these words. First Peter announces that Jesus is “the Christ of God,” then Jesus tells them that this Christ guy that Peter speaks of is going to suffer, and that in turn his followers are going to suffer, and then it is revealed that He truly is the Christ through the transfiguration. It's quite an eventful time in the life of the disciples. But in finding the Christ, they are told that they are going to suffer.

Now think of what the image of the cross was in the minds of these disciples. To Christ’s Followers today, the cross is an image of love. To Christ’s Followers in 30 C.E. the cross was a gruesome image of death and humiliation. The disciples would have never been caught dead wearing a cross around their necks or hanging them in their houses. As someone once said, “To a disciple, seeing someone wear a cross around their neck would be like us seeing someone wearing an electric chair around their neck.” Maybe the image that Mel Gibson gave us in “The Passion of the Christ” can help us understand what the image of the cross would have been to the disciples.

Now fast forward to today, but the today that happened approximately 1,975 years ago (give or take a few years). The disciples had to stand by and watch their beloved leader being beaten, whipped, flogged, mocked, humiliated, and ultimately killed in one of, if not the most brutal of fashions ever available. I have a feeling that the words Jesus uttered back on the day that Peter confessed Jesus as Lord may have entered the minds of the disciples during all of the chaos. I also have a feeling that they might have thought something like this; “umm, this is what we are called to do on a daily basis!” Maybe they wanted to take the same approach that Lone Star and Barf took when they saw what they were about to get into in Space Balls.

Fortunately for many of us, the cross that we carry allows us to skip the physical atrocities that Jesus unjustly had to suffer from the religious and political powers.  Most of us get to carry a cross more similar to the one the apostle John carried, (according to Christian tradition, John was the only disciple not killed for his faith), one that will not result in physical punishment. Instead he was ostracized and sent to exile on an island. Like John, sometimes we are going to be ostracized for our faith. Sometimes it will come from secular sources, sometimes from other religious sources, sometimes it will come from even inside our own religious tradition. I remember getting angry with a group of Christ Followers who took out a page ad in my local newspaper urging for peaceful responses after 9/11. At the time I thought they were idiots, I am sure others thought the same, maybe they used other words. But the point is this, these men and women were ostracized for their faith. However, in retrospect, all that these people were trying to do was to follow the teachings of Christ to their fullness, thru loving even their most disliked neighbors (as the Good Samaritan did), and by turning the other cheek to their oppressors. For this group of Christ followers:  love was their cross, peace was their cross, and Christ was their cross.

 In short, the crosses that Christ Followers carry on a daily basis are the teachings and actions of Christ. We carry teachings and actions which are counter to the culture that we live in; teachings and actions which are seen by the culture as being foolish. Many times, by carrying and holding onto these teachings, others are going to ostracize us. They are going to call us names; they are going to claim that we are bad Americans, even bad Christians! And despite the old limerick, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me,” names do hurt. Names are painful. Names have a powerful effect on a person; they can make them angry, they can make them sad, they can make them hurt. But there is Good News!  A Good News that is unknown to those who continue to persecute the disciples of Christ. That good news is this; resurrection is just around the corner! 

Part four of: "In the Beginning. . ."

                        First off, sorry for taking so long to tie this up, I got distracted, it happens. Secondly if you want to see the first there parts click on them here: Part One, Part Two, and Part Three. Thirdly, I am currently reading a book called Money, Greed, and God by Jay Richards, and I will write a book review on it and after that I will begin "reviewing" another more ancient book by the name of The Gospel of St. Mark. Finally, please, please, please comment your thoughts on this. You don't have to agree with me to post and I appreciate differing view points.

                   So a few months ago, I read an article from the religion section of the Huffington Post which I find quite enlightening, not the Huffington Post in general, but the religion section of the Huffington Post. Anyway, I don’t remember much about the article, but I do remember that it prompted me to post something on Facebook that went something like this, “Those who open their Bibles to find answers will find the answers that THEY seek. Those who open the Bible to ask questions will find the answers that HE gives. Just ponder that for a few moments.”

                What I meant by this is that when one searches for a certain topic in scripture, they can often find exactly what they want to find. If they want to find what God has to say about salvation they can find all the verses on salvation, then read each individual verse, and then pick out the verses that fit best their thinking on the issue. The result of this is that the person does find the answer that THEY were seeking. However, in finding the answers that THEY were seeking, THEY often force the Bible to conform to THEIR own view of the world and in doing so we end up with a distorted gospel.  

                However, when a person allows the scriptures to give then the answer that GOD desires, their view of the gospel there is likely to be distorted. In order for a person to do this they must attempt to attempt to take their worldview out of the equation. Now this can never be done completely, but it can be attempted, and in attempting to do so two things do occur. First, a person will be able to better recognize when they are distorting the scriptures with their own world view, and secondly they are more likely come out with a better understanding of scripture. But to do this, one must come at the scriptures with questions such as: what is the point of this passage? What did the author want to say?  Why did he say this? Why was it important for him to say this? What aspect of God is he trying to get at? To whom was the author saying this to? Etc.  The result of this is that the person ends up being formed by the scriptures in the way GOD desires us to be.

                Ultimately, I feel when we attempt to reconcile all of the different creation stories to agree with one another; we fall into the trap of making the scriptures say what we want them to say and in doing so we fail to miss an opportunity for God to reshape us. Or in other words we get the answer we were seeking at the expense of getting understanding from God. On the other hand, when we allow ourselves to see that each author was to attempting to tell us about the nature of God (as creator, savior, and sovereign) and our relationship to Him and the earth, rather than how nature was created by God, we come to a better understanding of who God is and when we understand who God is we can better understand who God wants us to be.

Part three of: "In the Beginning. . ."

            So I have discussed two of the most popular creation accounts in scripture in my last two posts on this series (Part One and Part Two). Now I want to discuss two lesser known accounts, one in Psalm 74 and the other in Job 38. These two accounts are similar in the fact that they are both part of a greater narrative. They are also alike in the fact that they both ascribe glory to God within their respective narratives. Despite their similarities we are presented these two accounts for differing reasons; Psalm 74 is presented in order to reminds us that salvation comes from God, whereas Job 38 is delivered to is in the hopes that we are reminded that God is God, and we are not.

First let’s look at Psalm 74. Here we are given a creation account that recalls how God created order in the midst of chaos rather than God creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). This whole creation/ordering of the earth begins with God subduing both sea creatures and Leviathan (some rather large sea creature). Now, last I knew, when God the creatures that dwell in the sea, that He described them as being good. So how could these evil creatures have been created by God? If they were created by God, why would God have to subdue both of these creatures if they were described as being good?

Now some could make two claims. The first these events occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, which is called the Gap Theory. Now, it’s a plausible theory, but I have yet to be convinced of its truth. Mainly because I don’t believe that the bible was dictated word for word by God, which means I do not have to struggle and find ways to reconcile the different creation accounts. Another possibility could be that it occurred sometime after the fall. Once again, possible, but it seems odd to include an account that occurred after the fall with events that are concerned with the creation/ordering of the earth.

What I find more plausible is that our psalmist really wasn’t taking care to be literal, after all we are talking about poetry. So instead of trying to put the event in the context of creation, we need to put it into a different context, which is the context of the psalmist, which in turn is utter chaos. In short the psalmist is reminding his readers that God has re-ordered chaos once before, and He can do so again.

Now, let’s fast forward Isaiah for a second. Here we are told God has control over the nations, even without the nations realizing that He has control over them. To the Israelites, God literally controlled all of creation, both the elements of the earth and the people of the earth. So if the psalmist views God as being in control of both of the nations as well as the elements of creation (which I think he does) our defeated friend is saying this, “God, we are in a time of chaos, please do not leave us in this situation. I know how great you are through the fact that you once ordered chaos at the beginning of time. Please God, don’t forget us and order chaos once again.” In short, the psalmist is saying, God you were once were gracious enough to be great for us before, please be great for us again by delivering us from our enemies.

Moving onto Job, we have a situation where God rather plants land and sets it into the waters. But as we know, in Genesis, land is created by separating water. So which is it? Or better yet, does it matter?

When we put the passage in context, it does not matter. The context in the book of Job is that Job feels as if God has abandoned him despite being upright. But rather than asking God to vindicate him, Job ultimately asks, "why me?" Now, the whole book of Job consists of Job turning back to the fact that he is sinless, while his friends tell him that he must have sinned against God and beg of him to repent of his sins. But finally after thirty plus chapters of this, our hero finally gets a response from God, which is essentially this, “Job I am greater than you, and although you may not understand everything I do, the fact is this: I have done things you could never do, I have been places that you have never been and I know things you could never know.” In short, our creation account here is once again not about how God created, but rather that God is great, partly due to the fact that only God created.

Both of these creation accounts are about the fact that God is great. In one account a psalmist acknowledges God’s greatness by recalling the fact that God has controlled chaos in the past and then asks for God to do it again. In Job we are reminded (by God Himself), that there are just some things we can never understand (perhaps one of the things we could never fully understand is how God created), and also that we need to remember to trust God because God knows what He is doing.

In the next installment, I will discuss why it is not important to reconcile the creation accounts and what we can miss out on if we do.

In response to some Rob Bell critics....

So I posted my review of Bell's work Love Wins the yesterday. Today I feel like it is time to discuss some of the criticism. I am not going to personally attack anyone for two reasons. The first reason is because it would be an unloving thing to do. The second reason is that it is not what the author of the book would want (as he has stated in sermons and in his book as well). Therefore, I will leave the names of some individuals off my blog.


Anyway, today there was an article just posted today on yahoo.com, Who's in hell? Pastor's book sparks eternal debate. First, I am not surprised that the pastor lost his job. Let's face it, this is a polarizing book, and I believe that most people who have continually been taught that Hell is a place with fire and pitchforks where sinners will eternally burn forever will not change their mind due to one book written by Rob Bell. I mean look at Galileo, he had a hard time convincing people that the earth moved around the sun and not vice versa. Now I am not saying what Bell said it complete truth like Galileo's claim. All I am saying is that humans have a hard time giving up what they have been previously taught, whether the new teaching is truth or fiction.


That being said, what disturbs me the most are some of the comments being made by influential Christians. The president of a popular seminary had this to say about Bell's book, "I just felt like on every page he's trying to say 'It's OK. . . And there's a sense in which we desperately want to say that. But the question becomes, on what basis can we say that?" Why does this disturb me? Because here we have a PRESIDENT of an influential seminary who is making a claim that is far from being true about Love Wins. Nowhere does Bell state that it is OK to be a sinner. Nowhere does Bell downplay the affects of sin on a person's life. In fact, Bell goes farther than many traditionalists go when it comes to how sin affects a person. Whereas the traditionalist will often say, "stop sinning and repent, because if you fail to, you will burn in Hell." Bell states something more along these lines, "If you sin and fail to repent, you will live in Hell, both in this life and in the next." Bell's view of sin has immediate and future consequences, whereas the traditional view focuses mainly on the future.


A professor who teaches at another seminary had this to say, "It's love, but it's a just love. . . God is love, but you have to understand you're a sinner and the only way to get around that is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross." Once again the person who made this comment has failed to grasp Bell's thinking. Bell totally believes that it is only through Christ (as the Word of God) who allows us to have access to God. But Bell does actually discuss, the "just love of God" in his work. Bell feels that God's just love will result in him allowing people to either be in Heaven, or be in Hell. In fact, that is the whole point of the book, God's just love wins in the end by allowing us to be where we choose to be, or better yet, where we desire to be.The difference between Bell's just love and the person who made the comment, is that Bell believes God will give a person eternity to choose to accept the just love of God. This does not mean that all people will come to God like the early thinker Origen states, but rather Bell takes on a view similar to C.S. Lewis, when he states that some people will never turn to God, and as a result will never enter into Heaven, but instead they will choose to spend eternity in Hell, aka separated from God. For further information of Lewis' view read The Great Divorce.


Quite frankly I find comments like these all over the place, whether they be in Amazon reviews, or in articles, or in interviews. And the one thing that remains is that those who make such comments, are making uninformed statements about what is in Bell's book. Now, to be fair, some negative critiques of Bell's book are fair, and I have nothing against people making fair negative reviews (see review by Bell's fellow Fuller alum for a fair negative review). And also to be fair, I am sure there are some positive reviews which are uninformed as well.


Anyway, my point is this, if you have yet to read the book, please do not make critiques of Bell's work, because to do so is wrong. And my plea is this, if you want to know about Bell's thinking in Love Wins, please read the book. Or at the very least, ask someone who has read the book in whom you personally trust. Please don't base your opinions off of some internet posting blow hard, whom you have never met. (myself included!)  

Love Wins book review.

*Disclaimer: This book has a ton of meat to it, therefore I could not write about everything that Bell said in it without writing a whole new book. And let's face it, Bell is a way better communicator than myself, so let's just stick with the original. That being said, if something is unclear, or you have any other questions about the book, please leave me a comment and I will get back with you ASAP*


Title: Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

Author: Rob Bell

Publisher and Date: HarperOne, 2011

Authors Background: One of the founding pastors of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. Bell has authored/coauthored numerous books including: Velvet Elvis, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, Sex God, and Drops Like Stars. Appears in the Nooma video series. Bell received his undergraduate degree from Wheaton College, and later his Master of Divinity from Fuller Theological Seminary.

My experience with Bell’s previous works: My first experience of Bell was through a Nooma video at a Social Club meeting in college. About three years later I became acquainted with Velvet Elvis, which I loved due to the way Bell stated how we should view our faith. It would later change my views on how the Christian life ought to be lived. I have also read “Jesus Wants to Save Christians.” Once again I found Rob's work to be an interesting interpretation on how the Christian life ought to be lived. Finally upon getting my iPod, I started listening to podcasts from Mars Hill Bible church. To be honest though, I have become a much bigger fan of their newer pastor Shane Hipps, after his sermon “The Wiffle Guitar." But I still think Bell is pretty darn good at speaking, even if he did receive bad grades in his preaching class.

My Impression of Bell before the Book: I felt that Bell truly has a unique way of look at scripture, and has a gift of bringing the ancient scriptures into the age that we live in now. He is able to do this by using both an historical critical method of exegesis, along with delving into the original languages of scripture. I also felt that his teaching also tends to focus on orthopraxy (right living) over and above orthodoxy (right thinking). 

Summary: So, what is Rob Bell? Is he a Universalist? Is he an Inclusivist? Is he an Exclusivist? I know many of you are dying to know where Bell lands in this spectrum, in fact that might be the sole reason that you are reading this. But I'm going to save the answer to that question for later. Instead I want to start somewhere else by asking this question; does Rob Bell preach anything new in this book? To be honest, not much new teaching is going to be found in this book. Almost everything Rob Bell stated I have heard from other people, and much of what I had not heard was attributed to others. Therefore Rob Bell is true to what he has been saying all along, what he believes has basis in Christian thought throughout the centuries. Now it may not have been deemed orthodox throughout the centuries, but I think it ought to be said, that of the six main ecumenical centers of the early church, at least 5 of them were open to other ideas other than Exclusivism (See Tony Campolo's podcast on Universalism). And even the Eastern Orthodox churches are open to other ideas concerning salvation to this day. By the way, in case you had not guessed, the only center that clasped firmly to Exclusivism was Rome. And let's be honest, Rome has had a big affect on how we view Christianity in the West, whether we are Catholic, Protestant, of none of the above. Anyway, back to Bell, despite saying nothing new, the reason that this book is a big deal today is due to the fact we are hearing it from one of the most influential Christ Followers of this generation.

So what does Bell say that is really not that all new? First, Bell seems to be an advocate of the already/not yet Kingdom.  This belief states that the Kingdom of God is here, but not yet in its fullness. In Bell’s view, salvation is the result of entering into this Kingdom right here and right now, or as Jesus calls it, by “entering into life.” To enter into this Kingdom/life one must do more than just say a sinner’s prayer. They must repent, and then live out the principles of the Kingdom, which is to live out God’s will in the here and now. Bell then goes on to state that the places where God’s will is done is essentially Heaven. So what does the mean? According to Bell, Heaven is on the earth; right here and right now.  But Heaven is only accessible for those who follow God’s will. And it is by living in the Heaven that exists in the here and now, that we will be fully prepared to live in the Kingdom when God brings it down to earth in its fullness.

If Heaven is here now, what about Hell? Bell states that Hell is a reality, but it is not what many people seem to think it is. I found it interesting that Bell was able to summarize every verse about Hell in just a few pages. But then again, seeing as there was no Hebrew concept of Hell in the Old Testament, and that it only appears roughly thirteen times in the New Testament, it shouldn’t have taken long at all. For Bell, Hell is a reality in the hear and now just as Heaven is. People choose to live in sin, and as a result they are forced to live with the consequences of their sin. This is what he would describe as a personal Hell. However, Hell goes beyond person, because Hell can also be social. Hell becomes a social reality when people’s sins affect others in society, such as a wife must suffer Hell when she finds that her husband has been unfaithful. But also just like Heaven, Hell will also be a future reality, a reality in which people will be separated from God.

Where is this location of the future Heaven and Hell? On Earth of course (see Revelation 21). For Bell, Heaven and Hell will be in the same place. Heaven is not located above the earth, and Hell is not something below the earth. Bell finds Biblical justification for this belief in the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this parable the older son was already in Hell before his younger brother had returned home. This was due to the fact he felt like he was a slave and being watched over by an angry vengeful father. But not only did he view his father as being angry and vengeful, he felt that the only way to gain his love and approval was to be a slave to his father. However, what the older brother failed to understand was that Heaven was at his fingertips the entire time. According to Bell the older son should have realized that he did not need to do anything to gain his father's approval. Instead, for all those years while he was "slaving away" he could have had anything he wanted. Why? Because all of it was his anyway. But despite this, the older brother still chooses not to go to the party, which according to Bell represented Heaven, but decided to stay outside of his father's presence, which represented Hell. However, the younger brother, after experiencing a time of Hell by being away from his father, was able to come back to his father and experience Heaven. So while the Older brother is still stuck in Hell, the younger brother is Heaven, despite the fact that both are in the same location.

                Now that we know Bell's views on Heaven and Hell, the question becomes, what must one do to gain admittance to Heaven? According to Bell they must do absolutely nothing, yet absolutely everything. For Bell, everyone will be a part of this new World, but inside the New Jerusalem, there will be no sin allowed, God will put an end to it. So a person in the afterlife will have a choice to make, do they wish to follow God’s will or not? Those who follow His will in the new life can stay in the New Jerusalem, those who do not will be expelled. But there is good news, the gates never close in the New Jerusalem, they are always open! So what does this mean? People will be allowed to come in at any point they wish, including in the age to come. But the thing is, for people to be in this New Jerusalem, they are going to have to desire to do the right because that is what they want to do, not because they feel they have to.

                So, what is Rob Bell? Bell describes himself as an exclusivist that is on the other side of inclusivity. In other words, Rob Bell is not an Exclusivist in the traditional sense (surprise!), but at the same time he does not believe that all paths lead to God. Instead He believes that Christ was the Word of God, and that the Word was existent before all things, as a result of this, the Word is at all times everywhere. Therefore, Bell believes that people who do the will of God are Christ followers, even if they do not know the name of Jesus. In other words, people who follow Christ are on the same path whether they know they are following Christ or not.

My Thoughts: So what do I label Bell? I would label him as an "Eternal Exclusivist that is on the other side of Inclusivity." In other words, Bell is no Universalist in fact that he feels everyone will be in the presence of God in the end. Instead, what Bell is, is Exclusive but not in the sense that only the “in group” will receive salvation. Rather Bell is exclusive because he believes that Christ, the Word, is the way to God. But just not in the popular sense that has been preached to most people throughout the years. At the same time, Bell believes that some do, and will continue to reject God even in the afterlife. This is why in the end “love wins” according to Bell, because ultimately God gives us what we want. And the good news is, that if we get sick and tired of sin, and choose that we want Him, we can come to God at any point in this age, or even in the age to come.

                That being said, I would like to say, that this book is not only about afterlife salvation. Please do not read it as if it is. This book is about eternal salvation, and eternal salvation that begins when we choose to do God’s will. To fail to see the book in this light would be like having ears but being unable to hear, or having eyes but being unable to see. So please, don’t scour the pages trying to determine what you should believe in order to be a part of the “in group.” Rather scour them to find out how you can begin your eternal life right here, right now.

                What do I think of the book? I thought the book was great from the standpoint that it used tons of scriptural references to go along with his argument. I did not count, or keep track of all the references, but Bell had to come close to referring to every book in scripture. I am positive that He was able to get numerous references from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Also I appreciated newness Bell seems to bring to scripture (new as in a new vantage point). I will admit sometimes it did seem like he may have been stretching the stories, (such as his view on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus where the Rich Man’s sin in the afterlife was failing to realize that Lazarus was no longer below him) but for the most part I think we was fair in his use of scripture. I also thought the book gave a compelling argument for his position in a pastoral way.

Now, do I agree with Bell? I am not sure. I do believe that the Kingdom is here now in one sense, but that it will also be established in its fullness by God at a later time. Also, I do believe that Christ is the eternal Word of God and is present at all places at all times. But I am not sure if we will have all of eternity to repent and choose to do God’s will. As far as my position on the afterlife though, I’m going to take the Tony Campolo route here and say that there are more things going on in Heaven and in Hell than we could ever understand in this life.

Score: Because this book states that it is important to follow the will of God in the here and now, and because for the most part, it uses a plethora of scripture in a responsible manner I am going to give it 4.5 out of 5 sandals. I’m knocking off half a sandal due to the fact that there are a couple instances where I feel Bell’s interpretation of scripture seem to be a stretch. But more often than not I feel he is right on. I highly recommend this book to others, if for no other reason than to allow it to challenge your beliefs concerning salvation in this life and the afterlife. After all, that is what Bell’s goal for this book was.

To purchase this book click here.

Part two of: "In the Beginning . . .

            So as I promised, we will look at some different creation accounts that are found in the scriptures. The two accounts found in Genesis, followed by the ones found in Job and the Psalms.  Of these four, we will spend our time today with the two found in the book of Genesis.

The first, and arguably the most known account of creation, can be found in Genesis 1-2:3 (I will for simplicity sake just call Genesis 1). I already discussed the context in which this story was added into the book of Genesis. I also stated that what is important for us to notice was who created the earth, not how the earth was created. But today I just want to sum up the order in which God created:

Day one: light,

Day two: the expanse between the water and sky, along with 

dry land,

Day three: vegetation,  

Day four: the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars),

Day five: birds and sea creatures,

Day six: creatures that dwell on the ground, followed up with 

humans.

Day seven: rest.

One need not look towards science to question the order of creation, one need only to turn the page and just read the next few verses.  It is here were we can find a second creation account, Genesis 2:4-25 (which I will from here on out label Genesis 2). Here, we have a creation story which takes an unspecified amount of time, which means that it could have taken 7 days, or it may have not. But what is important is that the order in which the creation occurred is quite different from the story found in Genesis 1. Here, man was created first before all other living things upon the land. Now compare that with Genesis 1, there we are told that man was created after animals, and after plants. But now we are being told that man was created before plants and animals? How can this be so?

I believe that we have to look at the focus of the two stories. Genesis 1 as I have stated over and over, and which I cannot repeat enough these days, was concerned with who made the earth. Genesis 2 however is more concerned with how humanity ended up in the conditions that they found themselves, both in relation to themselves as well as in their relation with God. We are given a glimpse that this is the importance of this story in verse 4 with the statement “These are the generations. . .”  which informs us that the story is now going to focus on humanity. This is then followed up with an account of how man is related to nature, how he relates with woman, how humanity then relates with God after the fall of humanity, and finally how humanity then relates with themselves in the account of the nations; which were created interestingly enough because of one man’s sin against another, (something we may have to discuss later). But back to the focus here, the Genesis 2 creation account is really the main focus of the larger story of Genesis 2-11. In short, Genesis 2 is the opening to a larger piece of literature which revolves around humanity, and as a result we get a very human centered account of creation; where man is created by God before any other living thing was created on the earth.

Now I could easily conclude my section on “In the Beginning . . .” right here, but we still have more creation stories to account for. Therefore, I refuse to end here, and as a result I’m not giving away the destination of this series quite yet. But I do promise to answer the questions of “So what, who cares?” at some point. So we will stop here for now, and I am hoping that you will ponder and comment on these questions: “What does it do to my faith to know that there are two separate and contradictory accounts of the creation in scripture? Does it even matter? If it does affect it, why is it affected? If it is not affected, why is it not affected?” Of course, all other comments are welcomed as well.

Free Wallpaper

Ok, so I was messing around with the doodle application on my ipod touch. Then I thought, "hey, why not create a logo for my blog." To be honest, I am not the best artist, but I think both look good as wallpaper. So I thought I'd share it with all of you out there. Feel free to use them.