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.

Part one of: "In the Beginning . . .

                . . . God created."  This was the point of the story found in first Genesis, the fact that God created.  That’s right; today some Christians wish to pass over the contextual importance of the first sentence of Genesis 1. Instead they like to focus on the aspects of how God created. However, what is important is that YAWEH created. How do I come to this conclusion?  I look to the historical context of the passage. Some traditionalists like to hold on to the teaching that Moses himself wrote Genesis, but biblical scholarship has shown that the date of Genesis, as we know it, to be around the 6^th or 5^th century BCE. This date also corresponds to the date of the Jewish exile in Babylon, which leads us to the reason as to why who is more important than the question of how in the creation account.

Now, Scholars also like to point out that the Jewish story of creation also has similarities with the Babylonian creation myth, Enuma Elish. The main similarities lie in the fact that the earth was created in a similar order (light, firmament, land, heavenly bodies, man, and rest). Coincidence, possibly, but just think about it from the point of view of a 6^th/5^th century BCE exile. If you’re a displaced people, in the land of your enemies, you are going to hear their story over, and over, and over. At some point you’re going to be afraid that the next generation of your own people will come to forget your stories and take up the stories of your conquerors. So what do you do? You say no, no, our God created, not their gods.  Thus making the key point of your collected story not about the way that the earth was created, but about who created. Which as we know from scripture was YAWEH.

              

            For now, we will stop here, and digest on the main point of Genesis 1. In the next part of the “In the Beginning” series, I will focus on some of the different creation myths that are found in scripture. Feel free to comment on my post, all opinions are welcome.