Love Wins by Rob Bell

[B. W.]

... The 'good news' is a life changing, life giving story and we should be experiencing and reflecting now some of what heaven on earth will eventually contain. We have been reconciled and are apart of the restoration of what God is and will do. When I read some of the book I was reminded of what Peter said when he told people to 'save yourselves from this twisted generation'. The ways and values of this world lead to death and Jesus saves us from this and gives us real life if we take the narrow way...

Sudsy’s, that’s part of the Eastern Orthodox way – a living relationship with Christ in the here and now and forever. There is some of this tradition that is spot on and other parts that stray into laa laa land as there anywhere else. I would recommend the book, Common Ground by Jordan Bajis for more balance into this matter. Look for it on Amazon.

This approach seems new to modern Westernized Church but it is not. Bell reflects more of the EO traditions but be careful as the EO has it fair share of bad doctrine too that can creep in unaware too. Bad doctrine can be identified by how it promotes a, "Will not believe or accept God unless he bows to human sentiment and human sentiment’s test first or God can take a hike," attitude.

Blessings
-
-
-

[MarcusOfLycia]

I've had a bad run-in with EO doctrine in the past - I had someone who was similar in some ways to my thinking all of a sudden declare that EO had the only true doctrine and that it was the only true church - and that while he couldn't tell me if any Christians who weren't in the EO church were saved, he knew we were wrong.

It was just bad... In the Eastern Orthodox church, sin is looked at as an illness, and the church a hospital. In the Western church, sin is looked at as a crime against God, and the church a place for those who've accepted this fact and the grace God has given to overcome it. I don't think either view is definitive, but I definitely lean towards the Western view. The "Law" language of Scripture makes it pretty clear that the Jewish people themselves understood sin as a crime against God; a violation of law. While sin has the symptoms of disease, its origin is not that of an acquired illness - it is that of a conscious choice against God.

When I've presented these objections, I typically get gnostic/philosophical responses that don't actually say anything in response. The "light and fluffy" stuff I complained about earlier. In my opinion, it isn't the cold (the Christians who are distant from God) or the hot (the people who actively seek God clearly), but the lukewarm that are in danger (the fluffy, wishy-washy, say-a-lot-but-don't-say-anything types). That's how I take Revelation's warning at least. To quote Treebeard from Lord of the Rings "We don't say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say it". When I read Rob's stuff (and EO and Postmodern thought), I see a lot of stuff that isn't worth saying that could be summarized and whose summary would be much clearer.

bw, I liked your point about letting your "yes be yes and your no be no". "Maybe" is all I see here.

[Canuckster1127]

It's probably not too surprising that we in the west prefer western thought at the base of our theology. We have the same tendency to want to infuse and superimpose our interpretive grid over the Scriptures as they do in the east. The structure we apply in building our doctrine becomes part and parcel of what we come out with in the end.

Some of these things are even at the base of what we perceive as conflicts or different approaches with Scripture. Some of that tension is there too. You have the Gospel of Matthew aimed at a Jewish perspective in terms of showing Jesus as the Messiah fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and then you have Luke telling the story to more or a non-Jewish audience by a non-theologian (although under the influence of apostolic leaders.) You have the contrast between Pauline doctrine (again often aimed at non-Jews) and while Paul was a penultimate Jew in many ways, he also was classically trained in greek logic and recognized as the apostle to the Jews. Then you have James, again writing to Jews and seeing things more through the prism and lens of established Judiasm and incorporating many of the elements that Paul reacted against in his epistles. This is reconcilable of course. But it's not uncommon for those who want to take a less pure grace approach to things to appeal to passages in James (or Hebrews too for that matter) which are written more to the Jewish elements of the early church. We know from Acts 15 and other passages in Paul that this was already an active conflict in the early church.

It's more complicated than just this of course, but in some ways, those traditions and views that are preserved and promoted in Eastern Orthodoxy were present in the early church and eclipsed by the quick growth of Pagans or Gentiles over shadowing the original Jewish core in the early church that formed in Jerusalem.

I appreciate the Christus Victor tradition within Eastern Orthodoxy (although it's certainly demonstrable present in the western tradition too, just not to the same sustained degree.) I also appreciate a tradition which is more present in Eastern Orthodoxy that is known as perichoresis. Western orthodoxy established a hierarchical relationship within the Trinity while Eastern Orthodoxy sees the relationship within the God head as more of a "dance" of equals and we are invited to join in that dance at their invitation, as a model of relationship.

The primary point however is, that it's not surprising that we prefer the overall perspective of our own cultural and intellectual perspective. We also often, I think, don't recognize that the actual building of our theological lens or perspective plays a part in building things in a way that make that somewhat circular. We prefer what conforms to our existing cultural and intellectual biases.

[Sudsy]

Bad doctrine can be identified by how it promotes a, "Will not believe or accept God unless he bows to human sentiment and human sentiment’s test first or God can take a hike," attitude.

I agree that 'bad doctrine' can result from what our sentiments are telling us but it can also result from our understandings of the character of God and just how being just and loving and good and merciful, etc. are and will be reflected in what God does. I think there is danger in regarding God as so 'other' that our concepts of just, good, merciful, loving, etc. are very far removed from God's. I believe the conscience God gives us is, to some degree, the image of God in us and therefore, we just don't discount our understandings of right and wrong, just and loving, etc.

Bell and others similar, often called 'liberals', are often judged as trying to make Christianity more 'palatable'. This is no doubt true in some cases but I think it is too easy to write off what they are saying as if any approach to making God more appealing is dangerous. IMO, some have made God very non-appealing to natural sentiment and their take on God also can result in bad doctrines.

I tend to think that whatever I can conceive of being just, loving, merciful, etc as a believer with the Holy Spirit living within me, are things that in God are so far more so than I could ever imagine. I am not able to draw a line on just to what extent, for instance, God's mercy will stretch. I can interpret certain scriptures and draw some kind of conclusion but do I really know ? I think I am best to leave this with God. And for some, this is too 'fluffy' or 'grey' to believe this way but for me, it is more a matter of trusting that God will do what is just and leave it in His hands. I think we all are in for many surprises even about who God accepts as His own.

[MarcusOfLycia]

One of the big things I think needs to be looked at is the historical perspectives on this. I know there have been several, but a lot of what is considered 'palatable' nowadays isn't necessarily Scriptural. We have different societal standards on some things than previous generations, and we sometimes have to realize that they aren't always better. CS Lewis and other writers often talked about how as society advances, society's morality overall retreats. I think that's the case today too. So what some people today (and I think bell falls here too), is that his view of what a "good, loving God" is is not necessarily more accurate than what "good, loving" meant to people two thousand years ago.

We've become very full of our own importance in this present age. We don't deserve anything God is doing - and the more we try to lower God to our level, the more we lose out on the true miracle: that a God who is so much higher than us that He need not be involved in our lives would care about us. Errors in doctrine tend to go in two ways: Raising man up or bringing Christ down. I think that happens in this instance, too.

[Sudsy]

We've become very full of our own importance in this present age. We don't deserve anything God is doing - and the more we try to lower God to our level, the more we lose out on the true miracle: that a God who is so much higher than us that He need not be involved in our lives would care about us. Errors in doctrine tend to go in two ways: Raising man up or bringing Christ down. I think that happens in this instance, too.

Some who may be judged as trying to 'lower God to our level' though may argue that they are raising God to a higher level ('If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me'). They may do this by putting more emphasis and giving more importance to one of His characteristics over another but that is how they read God in scripture. So, I might think someone is making God seem more 'palatable' when someone emphasizes His love over His wrath and in this is 'raising man up' when perhaps this person believes they are raising God up as they see in scripture God's mercy and love outlasting His wrath.

I'm just trying to say that there is a scriptural case and interpretation of who God is that can be the driver of a belief and not our ego or sentimentalities taking over. The flaws might just be in our understanding of how God's love and wrath will ultimately play out.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I found this interesting:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/W ... About_Hell

Its a look at early Christian views on hell, and from what I've learned elsewhere they were fairly consistent. I can't see how Christ could warn so many times of hell in the NT and then just have it be, essentially, purgatory. I'm sure our imagery and metaphors and ideas of what hell truly will be like only scratch the surface of revealing what it truly is (in my opinion, most of the suffering will be self-inflicted by action and knowledge of what's happened).

While understanding hell is a difficult thing, for me it matters more that my view is accurate than easy... it just feels like a litmus test for Christian truth is often how it appeals to non-believers. Rob's book really does that - it looks great to people who don't actually have any interest in being Christians. If the truth is just as appealing to someone who isn't guided by the Holy Spirit, what is His purpose? If people can feel true, ultimate joy and know the Truth without interaction with the Holy Spirit (as bell hinted he believed with Ghandi), then what, seriously, is the reason to become a Christian? Why not just pick the religion that makes you feel best about yourself and live a 'good' life? After all, you'll eventually be going to heaven anyway, and at least this way you get to spend this temporal existence doing whatever you want.

I just can't square away God's Justice with His Love if the two are defined as opposing forces. I've even heard people now say that the "God of the Old Testament doesn't really exist. He's just too mean". Seriously?! Since when did -we- get to define what makes God good?

Does sin matter? Really, on the eternal time-scale, does it matter if, for the majority of eternity it doesn't affect anything? It would be like identifying a quark in the entire universe (well, technically, that would be easier). If sin matters so little, why would God have to come to earth as a man to suffer death - to suffer hell/separation from God (which is, I think a good description of hell)? I guess I don't see the point to any of it. What of the talk in the Gospels of John (often ignored) about the incredible value of works related to faith? How faith without works is truly dead faith? (Heh... I feel like bell now, asking all these questions). Honestly though, I don't see how work is important if it doesn't, in the end, affect anything. What is the value of spreading the Gospel? In the end, we'll all be saved anyway. What is the urgency?

These aren't trite (I hope) questions - they are legitimate problems I have with accepting what appears to be bell's view. The fact that he is so clear sometimes about what he believes makes it worse. Its like telling people that you're cool. If you have to do that, isn't that proof you aren't? I know its a silly example, but 'cool' people are just... well... cool. You just know. Character/worldview is lived out, and if you have to constantly tell people what you are because your writings make them confused, either you aren't a very good writer (since you keep saying things differently than what you intend), or you actually aren't 'cool' (or in this case: you don't actually hold that worldview) and so you need to tell people you have it so they don't make conclusions based on everything else you say.

Sorry for the (probably incoherent) 2:45 am rant... just did a lot of thinking/talking about this book with people today and felt I'd share some of the things that came up. Once again, I don't think the guy should be restricted in saying what he is. I respect him even if I disagree severely. I just wish he'd be more forthright with what he believes.

Random sidenote: I'm not capitalizing the b in bell's last name because my keyboard is currently missing the 'b' key and I just have a lower-case one copied for pasting

[Canuckster1127]

Those are good thoughts and I understand them. I agree with you, ease of human perspective is not in the final analysis grounds to adopt a position. There's more to some of this thought than what I'm hearing and this is where some of my thoughts are going.

First, in terms of church history, there have been multiple views of the atonement and nature and duration of hell. The traditional reformed views that focus upon Penal Substitutionaty Atonement can be traced through Church History to have developed later. I usually hear about how that the the truth of a position is not dependent on the progression of its discovery or clarity and I suppose that is true. However, I do think it begs the question, especially on a doctrine that then becomes key to someone's soteriology and is often suggested by some to be cardinal to the extent of excluding those who do not adopt or act in strict accordance with it. I think scripture uses several different metaphores to describe and make understandiblle the atonement. We seem often to be caught up in which methaphor we wish to make the "master one" or even the exclusive one. Systematic Theology in that regard is tempting especially for those who wish to eliminate mystery or just give lip service to it. By adopting and focusing upon just one metaphorical explanation to the exclusion of the others, mystery is reduced and logic and reason promoted. It begs the question though, that if this was God's intention then why wasn't he clearer to those who we closer to the actual revelation of Christ and the Apostles and if the degree of conclusion drawn is as severe and strong as they suggest, is it right to conclude that none others were saved before their particular brand of understanding came along?

Bell isn't the real issue, although he's been placed in the center of it in this current iteration. This discussion has been going on in various degrees and with slights changes in emphasis for at least the last 400 years and in some contexts before that. At least now it's just reading books or not reading books right now. There have been times in history that people have died for daring to dissent or think outside of the prescibed box (and from several directions, not just one primarily).

I've criticized Bell to some extent for the manner he's broached some of this. I'm not particularly post-modern in my view and approach. But I also recognize that his audience falls primarily in that spectrum and his approach is consistent with his subject matter and his audience in that regard.

When Scripture uses different metaphors to give us handles on things I think it's important to recognize that the metaphor is not the thing itself and be willing to see the totality of the metaphos used to give a broader understanding.

bart

[Sudsy]

I created this long response but I was drifting back into our 'nature of hell' debates that are quite heavily discussed on other threads. I recommend these be considered as one checks out their views against those of other believers.

A couple comments and questions, not that require answers but rather to think about (a Bell technique) -

When we look at 'early church Fathers', why not go back to the very earliest, the ones who wrote the New Testament as inspired by the Holy Spirit ? What did they say about 'eternal/never ending torment' ? Why did they not say anything in their delivery of the 'good news' ? What was the 'good news' to them ? Was it more to do with the present victory over sin and reconciliation with God with a future hope of resurrection to be with God or was it more 'good news' that you can escape the wrath of God that will send you to a place of torment that never ends ? Questions, like these make me question as to what we should and should not be presenting as the 'good news'.

Regarding church history - did not the 'early church fathers' wander into all kinds of beliefs and practises that are very suspect in their scriptural support. This was happening even in the very early churches that NT letters were written to. How much did satan twist certain concepts to make Christianity something different than what Christ was really about ? The reformation was an attempt to address some of these areas.Today, it might appear that views are trying to make Christianity more appealing for the same reasons that in early times hell was made more scary - to make converts. At what point have we wandered from the right presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ ?

I think with the Internet and easy access to books, more believers are exposed to variations in Christian belief that in the past were known mainly to the few within the leadership of the church. People were perhaps told what to believe and to put their faith in the 'church fathers' as they had thoroughly studied all this stuff. Seminaries passed on what their beliefs were and there were limits to think much outside this box. Today, people, I believe, are more prone to believe what makes sense to them to believe. When we get into areas like non-ending torment in hell fire; the fate of those who have not heard; other religions; etc, some common answers to these are quite suspect and people don't shrug them off as they might have in a time when we were to not question but respect our elders.

And, personally, I don't think God is as far removed from our sense of what is just and loving as He is portrayed to be in some traditional views. Others see any 'softening' of views as a danger to wandering from the truth. How will we present Jesus to the world ? I think this is a very serious and needful consideration and conversation.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Sudsy, my main response, again is this:

What is the value of the atonement of Christ? What is the point of God coming as a man to die in the first place? Where is the gravity of sin?

I don't believe that just because some early Christians believed something, it makes it true - I pointed to the early church leaders to show that it was a fairly consistent view. The book of Revelation, as well as books throughout the old testament and Christ's own description and discussion of hell in the Gospels presents hell as more than a state of mind or some Protestant version of purgatory. If the imagery of hellfire is wrong (it could be in a lot of ways - most of our imagery is from Dante, not early church ideas or Scripture), then so be it. The problem I have is the acceptance of a position that it doesn't exist at all. There's ample evidence in Scripture that it does.

I suppose I'm stuck back on what Rob said in one of his advertisements for the book: Is Ghandi really in hell? He makes a big point suggesting there's no way that's the case; after all, Ghandi was a good guy. So, are we saved by our works? Ghandi didn't believe in Christ, so what value is there in anyone else believing in Him either? In the end, God makes everyone worship Him, so the choice to not worship Him never actually happens - we, in the end, are going to end up with Him whether we like it or not (this is hypothetical! I -want- to end up with Him! Not everyone does, though.)

God makes it clear that Satan will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity - the second death. Is this just where sending people there isn't? No one complains about that - and yet, how is it different?

I just can't reconcile all these ideas. I find it much easier to accept I don't quite understand how God is going to deal with the end of all things than that I know God well enough to judge His words in Scripture and read different meanings into them just so I feel better about it. I'm not saying you do that, sudsy. That's just how I'd feel about myself if I chose to interpret what I know any other way.

Do any of these questions make sense? I understand that in preaching the Gospel, hell wasn't always presented. But then, the Gospel is about Christ, not about eternal destiny. The point of Christianity is to worship Christ - the point is what Christ has done. Christianity isn't, as Bell presents, a choice between heaven and hell. It is a choice between being with God and separated from Him. Hell is separation from God. That, I believe, is going to happen to people who choose it.

----

BW, making our "Yes mean yes" and our "No mean no" is another great point - I don't think on an issue of such gravity as eternal destiny that God would allow the wording to be so unclear. I don't think its unclear at all if you don't read anything into it. I'm happy to be corrected, I just don't see it yet.

----

Bart, I do think the Scripture is clear about it. When I get some more time I'll post what makes me think that. For now, I lean a bit on Revelation - there's some things I just can't see any other way right now. I definitely agree about the Mysterious part over logic. That's kind of how I see my position as well - its mysterious to me how God will deal with nonbelievers and those who don't want anything to do with Him in the final judgement, but I accept the mystery as just another thing I'll discover someday, probably not in this lifetime. But even if I don't know exactly how/why God will do things, I have a good idea of what He'll do, I think. The thing with Bell (and as you point out, he isn't really the issue, but I do want to make this point) is that he just needs to be more consistent I think. Otherwise its just confusing... and people can often be swayed without their consent if teaching is unclear. On such important stuff, I just wish he'd act his part - he's a Pastor, if he's going to ask questions, he needs to answer them and then be consistent in his answers with what he identifies his views to be. Again, I most certainly may be wrong, but I just don't see it. Thanks for your reply!

[B. W.]

I found this interesting:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/W ... About_Hell

Its a look at early Christian views on hell, and from what I've learned elsewhere they were fairly consistent. I can't see how Christ could warn so many times of hell in the NT and then just have it be, essentially, purgatory. I'm sure our imagery and metaphors and ideas of what hell truly will be like only scratch the surface of revealing what it truly is (in my opinion, most of the suffering will be self-inflicted by action and knowledge of what's happened).

While understanding hell is a difficult thing, for me it matters more that my view is accurate than easy... it just feels like a litmus test for Christian truth is often how it appeals to non-believers. Rob's book really does that - it looks great to people who don't actually have any interest in being Christians. If the truth is just as appealing to someone who isn't guided by the Holy Spirit, what is His purpose? If people can feel true, ultimate joy and know the Truth without interaction with the Holy Spirit (as bell hinted he believed with Ghandi), then what, seriously, is the reason to become a Christian? Why not just pick the religion that makes you feel best about yourself and live a 'good' life? After all, you'll eventually be going to heaven anyway, and at least this way you get to spend this temporal existence doing whatever you want...

Gal 1:10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." NKJV

This verse answers the point that MarcusOfLycia made: "While understanding hell is a difficult thing, for me it matters more that my view is accurate than easy... it just feels like a litmus test for Christian truth is often how it appeals to non-believers."

All of the appeals made against hell are based upon seeking to please men (non-believers) in order to provide air conditioners or love soap especial made for a fiery cleansing bath. Such talk tickles the ears and makes one sigh with reprieve but the reality of who we are as measured against a Holy God will one day be known. How we seek to manipulate, test, provoke, and entrap God’s goodness and love will be exposed and such sighs will be turn into something else all together.

As for me, what Jesus bluntly stated about hell and Jesus telling us to let our Yes be Yes and No be No lines up with how he presented hell as eternal, never ending. Jesus did not need to use secret insider knowledge to explain away what He revealed about the nature of Hell in Luke 16:19-31 nor did he appeal to please men's sensibilities in concerning what the word eternal used in Matthew 25:41, 46c means. He was blunt.

Jesus said to let our Yes be Yes and No be No. Why would he differ in telling us about Hell? Notice what the Apostles wrote on Hell as well as Jesus said as the earliest church documents regarding hell record. Did their Yes mean Yes and No mean No regarding what they wrote? Did they appeal to the experts and self proclaimed experts for approval first? Did they seek approval of the majority in shaping how they should present the things of concerning the Kingdom of God? Should we?

Gal 1:10, "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." NKJV

Regarding the Gandhi argument:

Did not Isaiah did say of humanities works are akin to a filthy tampon rag to God or not? Why such blunt words? Is the bible true or in error that human altruism can earn our place in heaven?

The bible teaches and reveals what is not pleasant to hear: Our human good works cannot earn salvation, period. Why, how cruel and unloving is this. people cry in protest! We can't earn our way to heaven! Are human good works superior to God's?

Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior."

Isaiah 49:6, "Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth."

Are human good works superior to the salvation only God can supply?

If human altruism cannot earn humanities way into heaven then how could Gandhi’s?

The bible reveals that God can indeed rise up a Cyrus to do his will and move non-believers to promote justice and hope to the oppressed. These good works of such non-believers fade and cease, just has have Gandhi's. In India the oppressed are still oppressed. The Lord is the judge of all the Cyrus and Gandhi’s out there and can do as he pleases to stop oppression. Interesting that in the stopping of oppression, God is still blamed for all suffering caused by both sides.

Did Gandhi meet Christ and trust in the blunt demand to believe upon Jesus – only the Lord knows this. Because of this, we cannot speculate whether such is in heaven or not. Look to yourself.

Are you, the reader, seeking an excuse not to believe in what Christ said in John 3:16, 36c, which is but another example of how sin within seeks to twist truth and the ways of God to cause God to become subservient to humanities persuasions.
-
-
-

[Sudsy]

What is the value of the atonement of Christ? What is the point of God coming as a man to die in the first place? Where is the gravity of sin?

There are a number of values associated with the atonement. One being we are reconciled to God. It is sin that has us separated and Jesus died for our sins. It is also a victory over the power of sin in our daily lives as well as the power of death is broken for the believer and we will be resurrected and put on immortality. Here are some views within Christianity listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity

The problem I have is the acceptance of a position that it doesn't exist at all.

Love Wins - page 71 - 'Do I believe in a literal hell ? Of course. Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs.'
Love Wins - page 79 - 'There is a hell now. and there is a hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously'.
To me, it is unclear about what Rob actually believes about the nature of the 'hell later'. It appears to be some sort of 'purgatory' for every person who dies as an unbeliever.

I suppose I'm stuck back on what Rob said in one of his advertisements for the book: Is Ghandi really in hell? He makes a big point suggesting there's no way that's the case; after all, Ghandi was a good guy.

I guess I missed that. I thought his point was that who can say Ghandi is, without doubt, in hell. I didn't catch where Bell was suggesting Ghandi made it to heaven because he was a good guy. I think he was just suggesting that we should not conclude where Ghandi is as God's door of opportunity may swing wider than we think. I believe Bell thinks that even after death, this door may still remain open and this is a minority view with evangelicals especially.

I find it much easier to accept I don't quite understand how God is going to deal with the end of all things

I would guess that Bell would think this is a better approach than to say we have it nailed down that never ending torment was a fact and cause it to be a big stumbling block to people hearing the Gospel.

Regarding how clear Jesus was with His parables, that is another interesting study. Even His own close followers didn't get it without further explanations at times. How much is literal and how much is not in these stories is quite interpretative.
If all elements are taken literally they can become quite contradictory with other scriptures. I still believe we 'see through a glass darkly' even though we don't like it that way. Sometimes we may overstep this mystery and think we have it all figured out in some areas. I think Bell is suggesting, hey, maybe we don't.

For me, yes being yes and no being no, is more about not emphasizing your answers to the point of swearing them to be true on some basis. We hear people sometimes say - 'thats the God's honest truth'. We should be careful not to do that and use God's name in that way. Some things may appear to be bluntly said in the scriptures but they could be mis-interpretations on how literal things should be taken. Jesus spoke only truth and is The Truth but we are fallible interpreters of His sayings.