Rob Bell: "Love Wins" – My Thoughts, Part Five

If it is not clear by now, I am not attempting to write a review of, or take apart the various chapters and points in Love Wins. Many others are taking on that task.

Instead, I am attempting to address what I feel is a much deeper issue. That issue is how the Evangelical community has treated Rob Bell these last few months. I mentioned this in my first post, but it has been unrelenting. I see it especially in the comment sections on otherwise good blog discussions. Folks have even taken to posting his comments leading into his sermon the week after the most vigorous attacks out of context and after making them into a video, criticize him for defending himself.

I am sorry, but when your sentence begins with “I have not read the book, but . . .” But what? You have no voice. How is this different than folks who have never read the Bible but claim it is not inspired, or contains errors, or number of other criticisms?

As I stated weeks ago, there have been times where I have physically hurt as I read viscous attacks on a man who loves and serves the same Jesus we do. To simply Tweet “Good bye” is just not Christlike by any definition. Did Jesus not say, “If they are not against me, they are for me?” I don’t think he feels as threatened by all of this as we think.

This week, as with most weeks, I listened to Rob’s sermon at Mars Hill. I heard something I have not heard before. He was not arrogant. He was not attacking. He was not defending. He was hurting. He was a man who has felt the full force of the Evangelical onslaught and it has hurt him. Being attacked by the group you are in some way a part of is the worst pain of all. He was pretty open about how he has had his “hope meter” shot through over the past weeks. Having felt that brunt my own in the past, I know whereof he speaks.

Does anyone honestly think that makes Jesus smile?  Does seeing someone hurt and attacked please him? If there is anything we all MUST agree on it is that we are to love one another. We are to love even our enemies. Has this been loving?

Why do we feel this need to talk so much about judgment to the exclusion of love and grace? Oh, we use the word “grace,” and talk about it in some sense, and put it in our communications, but do you not hear . . . even our grace conversations are tainted with judgment.

Scot McKnight, in his multi posting review of the book made one statement that really hits home. It shows he was trying to at least give Rob a fair hearing and not just write him off. Scot wrote: “I quite agree with Rob that it is an odd truth that some people, who are most concerned with having a nice afterlife, don’t much care about hell on earth in this life, don’t much care about foreshadowing where all of creation is going, here and now.   And this is wrong.  It involves a truncated purely other-worldly Gospel, which is more Gnostic than Christian.   I agree with Rob this is not the real Gospel Jesus preached.”

I prayed for Rob Bell today. I prayed for his encouragement. I prayed for folks to come along beside him to love him as Jesus would love him. I prayed that he would not feel injustice as he seeks to comment on it where he thinks he sees it.

Rob Bell: "Love Wins" – My Thoughts, Part Four

First Heaven.

Now Hell.

That is how the chapter on hell begins. Tough conversations lie ahead.

I have been fascinated with the vast amount of type space and venom that has been given on the subject of hell in this increasing online discussion (and I use the term “discussion” guardedly.) Why are we as Christians so quick to jump on this issue while matters of justice and mercy stand by and miss our eyes, ears and especially out mouths and fingers? Why do we seem so preoccupied with judgment both present and eternal?

When the Love Wins controversy broke, I put on my Twitter and Facebook accounts a statement from Scot McKnight that I really really really think we should take to heart. It was, “No one should begin to talk about hell without spending fifteen minutes in pausing prayer to consider the horror of it all.” I do not care how you define hell. I do not care how you determine people are sent there. I do not care how you determine it to be played out, for how long, and for what purpose, that statement still should give you reason to pause. But alas . . . for many, it has not slowed down their fingers on the keyboard.

“Hell” is an often used word in our culture. Stop and think about how often you hear the word in the course of a week. It is used as a swear word, a word you use to express your disgust with someone, as a descriptor of someone’s dire life circumstances (i.e. living hell”), a place where wicked go when they die, a metaphor for things just not going very well for you, and probably many other ways.  Donald Trump even used it in the last week in an interview on NBC’s Today show saying, “This country is going to hell,” and he was not talking about a destination of eternal punishment. He was talking about the financial situation of our country and the United States overall direction.

However, in the context of Christianity (and many other religions) as we know, “hell” is a theological word, with centuries of theological meaning tied to it. I am not saying I agree with that meaning, nor am I saying it is a unified meaning (it surely is not) but it has some traction in the Christian culture and in our broader culture as well. I think Rob has taken a calculated risk in this chapter and it has back fired. He knew it was a possibility, but he thought it worth the risk to move the discussion to the forefront. I think he attempted to redefine the theological word “hell.” I think he is trying to move between the “living hell” scenarios (which are just that I might add!) and the “eternal punishment” discussion seamlessly. I do not think it worked. The baggage associated to both topics is too real, too painful, and too entrenched.

So what exactly is Rob trying to do in this chapter? It seems he may be doing what he is doing in this entire book: push issues into the realm of dialogue. This is healthy. It is how weaknesses in our own arguments are exposed. When we actually listen to the other side of the story, we may begin to look at our viewpoint with a bit more of a critical eye. I do not mind the manner in which Rob puts forth questions. It is how he operates and I actually like it. This chapter is some of that on steroids.

I am not going to get into the theology of hell on this entry. I refer you to the two sites I linked on my previous post for some good discussion on that topic.

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/04/04/exploring-love-wins-4/#more-15446

http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/2011/03/27/for-whom-the-bell-tolls%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6-chapter-three-bell%E2%80%99s-hell/

I am bypassing the theology to say, if trying to redefine hell, is his first mistake, I think this is his second. He tries to deny being a theologian. He is indeed a theologian, try as he might to deny it. Rob often says, “I am not a theologian.” I could not disagree more. You are a pastor, it comes with the territory. We (he) may not be the ivory tower, reading and writing, avoid the masses, uncaring variety, but we are theologians. We are leading, talking and discussing God and all things related to God. It is part of the calling. In discussing the topic of hell, one author said, “Your view of hell reveals your view of God.” Pause and consider that statement for a moment why don’t you? That, my friends, is the essence of theology.

As a pastor, I likewise have to wear the “theolog” garment. I may not wear it well, but for me, as with, Rob, it comes with the territory. As I think about the awful subject of hell, I have to ask myself some serious questions, even if just for the sake of discussion with myself. What if fire is a metaphor for separation from God . . . or for something else? What if folks can escape hell after a period of time? Is the gulf pictured in the parable also a metaphor, after all it IS a parable? What if . . .? What if . . .?

I am not saying I do or do not believe any of the above, I am simply asking questions. That leads to the big question: “Does it change my view of God?”

I surely hope not.

This leads to what I think is the third error. While Rob does a good job in the book “demystifying” the concept of “gehenna” in the words of Jesus, he broad brushes some topics that would take a much larger volume to fully explore. I also think he misses it or does not address some other passages on this topic. He is simply trying to cover too much territory. I understand his thinking. He knows he will stir up a stink, and he is trying to defend Biblically what he is saying.

I intend to only have one or two more post on this topic and then leave it to others. At least that is my intention now. Let me close this time by repeating Scot McKnight’s statement, “No one should begin to talk about hell without spending fifteen minutes in pausing prayer to consider the horror of it all.”

Rob Bell: "Love Wins" – My Thoughts, Part Three

My plans have changed on this. I had originally planned to write about the various chapters in Rob’s book with my comments on his comments. I intend to tone it down now and just give some passing comments. Several items have led me to this.

First, there are some pretty smart cookies who are actually discussing the book in fair honest critical terms while not attacking the man who wrote it. That is all anyone could ask for. Here are two excellent examples of writers who are doing this:

http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture/

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/

You will have to go to previous posts, but you can and should go there to read what they have written.

Secondly, the conversation is getting a bit out of hand, and I don’t want to go on ad nauseum.

Finally, my ideas are simply to add to the discussion while not engaging too deeply in the debate aspect of it.

My comments are not going to be handled in the chronology or structure of the book, but instead in the order I wish to discuss them. In the book Rob says, “First heaven, now hell.” I am going to do just that. So at least for now, I am going against my own statement.

Christians have gone for so so long, evangelical Christians especially (and I am in that camp) speaking of heaven as if it were a place to escape to. We talk as if God had given up on this world totally and we are “out of here!” On that point, we are guilty as charged. I have done it myself in the same extreme as many reading this have done, or perhaps are doing.

In following up on Rob’s questions I wonder have we really done heaven a disservice? Have we lowered heaven to where it is created in our likeness and not in God’s likeness? Have we missed the point? To coin Rob’s phrase, “Have we lost the plot?”

I think so. Let me explain it with one passage and one illustration.

At almost every funeral I have attended and certainly every one I have officiated, at some point we read the passage in John 14, “In my Father’s house are many rooms.” (It may read "dwelling places" or something else but the concept is the same. The AV “mansions” is a poor translation for today at best.) I would speculate that most folks reading this have heard exegetical comments about this passage where it  is explained how in the first century Jewish family after the formal toast for marriage and the acceptance by the bride, the groom would the spend many months “preparing a place.” In almost every case I have read, he was going to his Father’s house and building an addition, and extra room as it were, for his bride and himself, and then he would claim his bride and take her to the father’s house. The groom was doing exactly what Jesus says he is doing.

This is where we get side tracked quite often. We go into great arguments about what the rooms are like, or what he is doing in the preparation phase, or what, when or how will he return.

I think those questions miss the point. The point is that the bride will be with the groom in the father’s house. The other incidentals are not the issue. The issue is (if indeed he is speaking of heaven here, and I think he is) that we will be with Jesus in the Father’s house. The point is not where or how or when or for what purpose. The point is WHO, namely Jesus and the Father and us (however you wish to define the “us.”)

Now an illustration for “where” heaven is.

The screen (or paper) where you are reading this is a two dimensional piece. It has height and width. It has no depth. The depth is what makes our world three dimensional. It adds an element that a two dimensional world cannot grasp and cannot even see or perceive or understand.

Suppose this page you are reading is a living world. The letters on the screen are the creatures living in this world. Suppose two of the letters, say the “t” and the “e,” were to be in dialogue about another world they could not see. Does it exist? Where is it? Where are the creatures who inhabit that world? You and I as the three dimensional readers seeing and hearing them may say, “Here! I am right here.” Now try as we might we are above these creatures and they can never comprehend our world. If we could become “incarnate” and visit their world, we could try to explain to them our world in terms they would understand, but would they really get it? Probably not. They cannot. This third dimension is beyond their ability to grasp. It is outside of their realm. Try as they might, they could never understand depth. They may see traces of it if we were push our finger through the page and they would then see this world as something intersecting their world, but they could never grasp it in total. The “t” may say to the “e,” "Where is Terry this three dimensional person?" I could say, “Here! I am right here!” But they could not comprehend it because it is beyond them.

As Rob, and other have mentioned, folks who study physics and especially those who accept “String Theory,” have identified eleven separate dimensions. These include space, time, etc. and numerous dimensions in the sub-atomic world.

Here is my point. They do not even consider a “spiritual dimension.” When we die, whatever death is (James says, the “spirit” leaves the “body”) we enter the “spiritual dimension.” Forget how you get to heaven, or how many will populate it, it is without doubt at that moment (until the “New Heaven and the New Earth and the New Jerusalem”) in the spiritual dimension. How can we in our three dimensional existence ever fully comprehend this spiritual dimension? The answer is: we cannot.   

Maybe while we are asking, “WHERE is heaven?” God and those in the spiritual dimension could be saying, “Here! I am right here!” But we cannot comprehend it any more than a two dimensional creature could comprehend a three dimensional person. Their presence is so close they can touch you and intersect your world, and yet you are not aware of it. Is this partially what is happening with the “cloud of witnesses” cheering us on in Hebrews 11? Is this why we feel God as if we could touch him, and almost see him, but . . . not . . . quite?

Maybe when we talk about heaven, we are simply using the wrong language.

God has told us a lot, but we really do not fully understand it. We cannot grasp it. It is beyond our ability to understand. I for one am comfortable living in that paradox. You see, I want a God that is WAY bigger than me. I want a God that is so large I cannot get my mind around the concept. I do not want or need a God who is just about two feet taller than me. Larger than me, but still small enough I can comprehend. I want a God that is so big I cannot wrap my mind totally around him. That is the God I want to pray to, and server and worship.

Maybe when we talk about heaven, we need to change the way our brain functions, change the imagery we use, change the language we use and change the thoughts we think. Maybe, just maybe then, we can get a bit closer to really appreciating heaven and God and what awaits us.