Jeff Ling

Okay. I read Love Wins. I read it cover to cover.
 
Footnotes.
Suggested Reading.
Copyright notices.
Acknowledgments.
All of it.
 

 
But marketing like that can backfire….

The big word being thrown around is “universalist.”

It shows up in almost every critique of the book I’ve come across in print, television and podcasts. But here’s the thing:

Rob Bell is not a universalist and here’s why:

Bell believes that there is a hell as real and eternal as heaven. He really does, but you have to have a clear picture of what he means by heaven and hell. As I understand Bell, heaven and hell are both eternal realities being lived now, in part, and entered into fully in the age to come.  In talking about heaven and what Jesus considered it to be, he says:

“So how do I answer questions about heaven? How would I summarize all that Jesus teaches? There’s heaven now, somewhere else. There’s heaven here, sometime else. And then there’s Jesus’s invitation to heaven here and now, in this moment, in this place.” (Kindle Edition: Location 815)

Bell views the “somewhere else” as God in and of Himself, the “here, sometime else” as the age to come that this current one will flow into and the “now” as living a vital relationship with God that makes the experience of heaven real now. For example:

“Around a billion people in the world today do not have access to clean water. People will have access to clean water in the age to come, and so working for clean-water access for all is participating now in the life of the age to come.” (Kindle Edition Location 609)

Bell refers to this as “dragging the future into the present.” As I stated earlier, that’s a vision God’s people should get behind.

Hell is equally a very present reality. People create it for themselves all the time and choose to live in it. Bell’s take on hell rarely rests long with individuals.  He moves quickly and often to  the language of power based sin as opposed to the individual. Poverty, financial greed, war, pollution, torture, etc..  While all of these are appropriate to consider, it does end up dwelling on the victimization of individuals by those with power rather than the universality of us all being guilty before God. To be fair, he does both, but his language certainly will appeal to those concerned with social justice and alienate those more attuned to God’s glory in justification. There’s a reason it was Piper who tweeted “Farewell Rob Bell” and not Jim Wallis. For Bell, hell is more of a warning to Christ followers than non-believers.

“Jesus did not use hell to try and compel ‘heathens’ and ‘pagans’ to believe in God, so they wouldn’t burn when they die. He talked about hell to very religious people to warn them about the consequences of straying from their God-given calling and identity to show the world God’s love.” (Kindle Edition Location 1046)

Bell envisions hell as a place of self-imposed misery and that those who choose to reject love, grace and true humanity are locked into. However, the the key is in the cell door and remains there. Our freedom is real and if we choose alienation, we can have it. Hell has the potential to be  redemptive in “Love Wins.” God’s goal is never eternal torment (a phrase you will hear over and over in the book. Bell likes to make it as ugly as possible.) but to bring correction intense enough to provoke those living there to get out.

“Failure, we see again and again, isn’t  final, judgment has a point, and consequences are for correction.”
(Kindle Edition Location 1131)

So, in Love Wins, hell is a place of misery to be sure, but given the alternative who would want to stay? What heart would not eventually yield in the face of continued love? Hell is perpetually a place that you can “check in anytime you like and you can always leave.” (The Eagles, Hotel California - amended) Like the older son in the story of the prodigal, we’ll always be in sight of the party, miserable in our bitterness but being beckoned by the Father to come and dine.

“At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.” (Kindle Edition Location 1338)

“So isn’t that universalistic?” Wait. There’s more to it.

Bell suggests the cell door may swing  both ways.

In Love Wins bell places a large responsibility on human freedom and insists that freedom must be maintained into the age to come. This includes not only the freedom to choose heaven over hell but to be able to choose hell after heaven. He writes:

“ So will those who have said no to God’s love in this life continue to say no in the next? Love demands freedom, and freedom provides that possibility. People take that option now, and we can assume it will be taken in the future.” (Kindle Edition, Location 1421)

Bell brings up Revelation 21:25 which states that the gates of the city will never be shut and suggests that freedom demands that we can come and go.

Bell Insists that Jesus is the only way to heaven in the new age. Here is the main reason that Bell is not a universalist. A true universalist would never suggest that acknowledging Jesus as Lord is necessary to salvation. After all, Jesus is just one manifestation among many that represent the life spirit or force known as God. Bell is having none of that. He believes that ultimately everything will be reconciled in Christ and that Jesus will be recognized as the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

“’I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ This is as wide and expansive a claim as a person can make. What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.” (Kindle Edition 1863)

This is why Bell can claim that he is “evangelical to the bone.” It all comes back to Jesus and sooner of later everybody will know it. If you want a really in depth look at all the shades of universalism, you can check out Timothy Dalrymple’s article on Bell at Patheos but I think Bell makes himself very clear by using the term “exclusivity on the other side on inclusivity”

What does he mean by that? Let me do that Bell style:

Exclusivity. Don’t believe the right things? We’re in. You’re Out.
Inclusivity. One Mountain. Many Paths. See you at the top.
Bell: One Mountain. Many Paths. See you at the top. Surprise! Jesus is King of the Hill

What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody. And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe. He is as exclusive as himself and as inclusive as containing every single particle of creation. (Kindle Edition Location 1878)

However this does present a problem. How do we understand the atonement in light of all this?

Bell talks about the many metaphors that the writers of scripture employ to describe what the cross accomplished. All of these are valid but it’s obvious that Bell wants to avoid that whole propitiation thing. It just doesn’t play well in our current culture. Not only that, you have to be able to adapt the whole thing to all those paths running up the mountain.  He says:

“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the “Blood will never lose its power” and “Nothing but the blood will save us.” Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods. People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways. But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.” (Kindle Edition 1575)

Bell sees the need to continue  finding metaphors that relate to our culture as well as all those paths running up the mountain as the on going task of evangelism. Why? Because Jesus is, according to Bell, “supracultural.”  He doesn’t belong to anyone and will not be co-opted by any culture including the Christian one. Bell says that we can,

“…point to him, name him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him—but we cannot claim him to be ours any more than he’s anyone else’s.” (Kindle Edition 1836)

Name him? I guess that door really is pretty wide open.

But now we steadily move toward a line that I simply could not ever cross…

Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sin, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let’s be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God. God is the one who rescues us from death, sin, and destruction. God is the rescuer. This is crucial for our peace, because we shape our God, and then our God shapes us. (Kindle Edition 2195)

This is one of the most troubling passages in the book.  I see this as very thin ice. Well, no… here the ice has melted and people can drown. So just three observations and I’m done.

1) Bell is big on the love of God. Real big. You’ll hear it over and over. What Bell does not like to talk about is God’s holiness, judgment or wrath except as it relates to the larger social ills that oppress others. “Let justice roll down like waters” but only on the big boys.

2)  “However true or untrue that is technically or theologically…” This statement is preceded by what many of us understand the gospel to be. As I understand it, the issue in justification is precisely how can God be just and yet the justifier? (Rom. 3:26) How can mercy and justice meet? (Ps.85:10) Let me state without equivocation, I needed to be rescued from God! I was his enemy, by nature a child of wrath, deserving my separation from God. (Eph.2:1-10) I understand God’s wrath to be His settled opposition to everything that diminishes His glory and I had fallen far short of it. (Isa. 48:11; Rom. 3:23) He was in opposition to me. He was angry (forget your human projections here) with me every day. (Ps. 90:7; Ps.7:11) At this knowledge Bell flinches. I stand in awe. I worship. I am undone. Bell suggests our vision of God is small. I believe his may be. The good, great and glorious news;  the massive, life giving message is that God stepped into history to save us from His own intrinsic integrity! He is just. He justifies. He is holy and remains uncompromisingly so at the cross. He is love and remains uncompromisingly so at the cross. This is not a love I have trouble trusting. This is not a holiness that needs be diminished or ignored for our own peace.

3) “This is crucial for our peace, because we shape our God, and then our God shapes us.” And isn’t this the thin ice Love Wins directs us to? Yes God is the rescuer, but why is that rescue necessary and does our peace need to be threatened by it? (Heb. 13:20; Rom. 5:1-2) Rather than allowing our imaginations and experiences to shape the God we worship, we could submit those things, even those painful and dark things, to the shaping power of the scriptures within the community of God’s people.

But that’s problematic isn’t it?

Because if we really believe in exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity then things become very

shapeless
formless
confusing

But love needs shape, definition, limits, borders, boundaries.

Marriages fail without them. Love loses.
Children suffer without them. Love loses.
Churches falter or wander without them.

Without them love loses.And we need Love to win.

 
Some suggested links:
Greg Gilbert – Two Cents, and Not a Penny More, on Love Wins.
Rob Bell Interview – Transcript
Trevin Wax – Rob Bell & Love Wins: Taking Evangelicalism’s Temperature
Tim Challis – Love Wins – A Review of Rob Bell’s New Book
 

• Bob Hayton over at Fundamentally Reformed offers this critique of  The Narnia Code: C. S. Lewis and the Secret of the Seven Heavens. Looks well worth getting! The author, Michael Ward, is a life long reader and student of C.S. Lewis’s works and his insights are extraordinarily perceptive. Tyndale has produced a DVD about code. You can view the trailer at the Narnia Code  website.
• C Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen offers a quick look at  Ten Myths About Calvinism: Recovering the Breadth of the Reformed Tradition.  The book releases in March and looks to be a must read for those trying to wade reformation waters.
• On May 2nd 2011, the King James Version of the Bible will celebrate its 400th anniversary. Should make for some big celebrations. The journalistic blog Get Religion has a story on it. The London based Economist is predicting a celebration of Biblical proportions.
• Very cool way to trick out your Facebook profile!
• In 1988, Billy Graham spoke at the TED conference on technology, faith and human shortcomings.

Ben Lemery discusses the trend toward theological illiteracy in the church.

I really love the Sacred Sandwich and their cartoon today is great!

In his ongoing discussion of the Calvinism – Arminianism divide, Adrian Warnock brings some perspective with “How God used a murder to accomplish his purposes”

4 Steps to Great Kid Sunday School Lessons over at Churchrelevance.

If we started 1000 mega-churches in next ten years would we reach America? – We just did. We didn’t.

Really loved Lou Fellingham’s CD – “Step Into the Light”

Wouldn’t you love to lock C.S. Lewis and Sam Harris in a room and watch what happens? In this corner, you have Lewis of Mere Christianity’s right and wrong as evidence of God and in this corner, Harris and his new effort to bring morality and questions of good and evil under the guidance of science. Heavyweight indeed.

Sam Harris is trying so hard. He really would like science to have the answers to the great questions. His latest work, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, is an effort to make that happen. While science has touted the high ground of big bangs and evolutionary process as the explanation of “how” things have come into being, it has been unable to address issues of “why” things exist and the reasons for the categories of right and wrong, good and evil.

Richard Dawkins, mutual back slapper and colleague, writes in his endoresement of Harris’s book:

“I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.”

Whether or not Harris makes the case convincingly, I’m quite sure that his understanding of Christianity (and make no mistake, Harris is at war with Christianity, not just “religion”) is so utterly flawed that he has no real clue what he’s referencing when it comes to the issue of why followers of Jesus do what they do.

In the latest issue of Wired Magazine, November, 2010, Harris does a Q&A with Olivia Koski in which he reveals some insight into his complete lack of who Christians truly are.

Olivia: Religion makes…truth claims all the time.

Harris: But religion is precisely the wrong software for analyzing human well-being. It’s the one area of our lives where people win points for saying, “I’m not going to change my mind no matter what happens.”

Mr. Harris would like us to believe that Christians are, in general, closed minded bigots with no tolerance for science. That there are such people masquerading as Christians cannot be denied. However, they are in fact, people religious by culture or upbringing who have no true understanding of what it means to follow Jesus in this world.  Bigotry, ignorance or hatred baptized by “religion” is dangerous and has nothing to do with the true church.

The truth is that Christians highly value the contributions of science at all levels. The ability of mankind to research, explore and create comes from the creator Himself. Advances in scientific fields are part of God’s common grace that help to alleviate suffering, improve the quality of life and help us to understand ourselves and the world we live in more completely.

In a recent appearance on the Daily Show, Harris makes one of the most unscientific statements I have ever heard:

“We have a problem. We have a kind of intellectual and moral emergency where the only people on the planet at this moment who think there are truly right answers to moral questions are religious demagogues who think the universe is 6,000 years old. Everyone else seems to think there is something suspect about the idea of moral truth.”

Seriously? Who exactly is the closed minded bigot here? Sam, you may actually want to scientifically test that hypothesis. The results may surprise you.

Harris is upset because believers are not willing to change their minds on fundamental  truth claims that would let the world off of the moral hook. Understood, but to suggest that we are unwilling to change our minds on things is woefully far of the mark. One of the basic aspects of our beginnings in Christianity is “repentance” which means to “change one’s mind.” We’ve changed our minds about many things and we’ll continue to do so. The Bible tells us that we are being transformed by the renewal of our minds and Proverbs is replete with admonitions to get the facts, weigh things carefully and make adjustments for new information. For instance, believers are constantly changing their minds on the issue of creation all the time. Yes, there are many 7 days/24 hour die-hards out there but there are also countless numbers of believers who fundamentally believe in a Creator while holding to numerous views on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, the age of the earth, evolutionary process, etc… and while Harris may dismiss such people as ignorant, many of them are very well educated and competent peers of his. All of us would agree that “religion” is poor software for anything but, believing in a Creator is not unreasonable. For believers it is a non-negotiable.

Much harm has been done in the name of Christianity. It is tragic and lamentable. Power, greed and lust have infected popes, televangelists and everyone in between. Many of these were never true believers or genuinely regenerate. The wheat and tares grow together until now and will until the day that God sets the world to right. Being sinners, we’re stuck with ourselves. We make lots of mistakes. Harris would like to suggest that we’ve done it all for the wrong reasons. :

Olivia: But hasn’t religion made some people behave more morally?

Harris: The problem is that religion tends to give people bad reasons to be good. Is it better to alleviate famine in Africa because you think Jesus Christ is watching and deciding  whether to reward you with an eternity of happiness after death? Or is it better to do that because you actually care about the suffering of your fellow human beings?

I find it remarkable that such a premiere atheists with his guns aimed at Christianity, knows so little about it.

Sam, there are many atheists who care about people who are suffering. There are people of all stripes who do. It’s the human condition. We’re all rebels against our Creator but in His common grace he keeps us from all sinking to the lowest common denominator and inspires us to help one another. Compassionate action is not the sole property of anyone. Should Christians display it? Of course! But not for the reasons you suggest. We don’t do it to “earn points” or to impress Jesus in hopes that he’ll reward us with eternal life. The issue of eternity is settled for the believer because he or she has trusted in the work of Christ upon the cross. We know full well that no amount of morality or compassionate works could ever gain us favor with a holy God. We are rebels in need of forgiveness. Whatever fruits of kindness and generosity in our lives (which, if you pay any attention at all,  pours out all over the world) is not the result of obligation but gratitude.

Sam Harris

Mr. Harris would have our basic values, and sense of right and wrong, be left for the human sciences to determine. After all, we’ve had a gadzillion years of evolutionary development to  show the way.

Olivia: How can you scientifically determine whether something is good or bad?

Harris: The science of morality is about maximizing psychological and social health… Obviously it would be a good thing to stop nuclear proliferation and genocide and climate change, and to better educate our children… People seem to believe that there’s  no ground for truth claims about human values – that these are not the sort of facts that science can ever deal with. But there is a place for science to argue that the Taliban is really wrong. Its beliefs lead to unnecessary human suffering…”

Frankly, this is laughable. Harris knows that he can’t have his cake and eat it to. But, unless he wants the world to finally dissolve into a morass of relativistic confusion, he has to reach for the high ground. It is a profound thing to want no accountability to a creator, to an ultimate moral compass, but rather than eat that apple, Harris would like science to ride in on a white horse as the new dean of morality. Can’t be done. No true materialist can be an effective apologist for moral absolutes. If, in fact, we are accidental, then you have to leave things in Darwin’s camp.  Social health? By whose definition? By the strongest, by the powerful, by the elite. Survival of the fittest. Period.

The truth is more accurately stated by the British atheist intellectual Aldous Huxley:

“I have motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

At least Huxley admits the reality.

In the same appearance on The Daily Show, Harris used the Catholic child abuse scandal as evidence for what a bad job religion does in the morality arena. But then, how does Mr. Harris account for all the atrocities of atheistic governments?  Christians would assert that both religion and atheism result in the same dead end: unregenerate people using a system to their own ends. Both groups have the same problem, a heart that is sick and in need of redemption. Regardless of what good we may do, the bottom line is we’re rebels against God. We reject his benevolent rule. We’re not a mixed bag morality wise because we’re religious, atheists or anything between. We’re a mixed bag because we’re spiritually dead. Religion won’t cure that and science has no answer for it.

Nietzsche was a far more honest atheist than the new breed could hope to be. He was, at least, courageous enough in his opinions to follow them to their horrific end. Nietzsche knew that the death of God meant the death of morality. To be clear, any appeal to equality, kindness, self sacrifice and shared values is groundless. In Sam Harris’s world we are only left with what he doesn’t want to admit: the abyss.

Lost: A Novel – Fast paced story, well written and well read. Michael Robotham uses a surefire formula: tragic detective and a child, both lost in their individual ways. The detective because he’s going through a temporary amnesia after being shot and left for dead in the Thames along with the estrangement he feels from his own children, the child because she’s feared dead but the detective is certain she’s alive. Great characters here, especially the interaction between the detective and a psychologist trying to help him recover his memories. (The language is rough so be forewarned.)