I’ve just re-read the entire series- and enjoyed it thoroughly.
There is just one glaring theological error I need to point out. Dumbledore tells Harry on more than one occasion that he a good person. Actually he puts it more strongly than that, using words like “pure” and “innocent.”
But Harry hates the Dursleys, spies, lies, and breaks whatever rules are in his way. A very interesting picture of innocence…
Naturally this post is a week or two late. That’s what happens when school starts up, I guess.
I saw a very annoying video of a woman talking about how evil it was to try to prevent a child from reading a book, any book. The woman was Judy Blume.
I keep going back to Corrie Ten Boom’s father’s suitcase analogy…some things children just aren’t yet ready to carry. And I think it varies from child to child. Bottom line, parents have to make some sort of effort to censor what their children read. I don’t think it possible or necessary to check up on every book, but some attempt. Of course I have yet to reach a conclusion on how censoring worked when I was a kid. But here is one positive example. The book was Jackaroo, I believe, and I read it and re-read it. Then my father got ahold of it. I had completely accepted- without question- the story’s justification for the main characters’ pre-marital sex. Useful to have that kind of problem pointed out to one…
On the other hand, The Hunger Games is up there on the books that people want to ban list. People talk about child on child violence, and they seem to completely miss the author’s point, which is very much not in favor of gratuitous violence. And it is that theme that makes the story…Katniss’ loss of the only person she was sure she loved- that’s what really hammers it home. In contrast I recently read the Maze Runner. Lots of violence. No apparent point. Of course it was the first in a trilogy, so I suppose I have to give it a chance.
Oh, and I think I’d like to re-read Jackaroo sometime. I remember it as a good story. Is that bad?
I think I might need a separate category for Food Lion. 
Anyway, this is just a note to say that I was looking for a card for a baby shower and it was hard. One card started with something about “tiny little hands…” Started crying right there in the card aisle. Not a lot of course…but I just want to make sure I’m acknowledging these things. I really do tend to blow it off inside, perhaps because it’s so standard. Oh yeah, that…
So what do you do about Hell?
Rob Bell says that it can’t be, that God would never do that, and that He would be cruel if He did. He then attempts a Biblical argument for universal salvation:
In Ezekiel 16 God says He will restore Sodom, which means those people must not be permanently lost. He then quotes many verses about God’s love and verses that say things like "and so all Israel will be saved." He undermines the idea of a literal hell with his description of Gehenna, the dump by Jerusalem where people burned trash. Animals fought over scraps there, he says, and you could hear the sound of their gnashing teeth as they fought. There are repeated attempts to make hell something we have already experienced, seen- and not something much scarier. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the chasm is the rich man’s heart- his attitude toward Lazarus. This is a common theme- we create our own Hell. He mentions Satan once, jocularly, as if he is in charge of Hell. There is an attempt to present Martin Luther and Augustine that makes it seem as if they would have supported some of this.
He makes some interesting points about how Christians act: "Often the people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death. " There is a lot about God calling us to human solidarity.
I don’t think love means never punishing, even more permanent punishments (I think it quite a stretch to deduce from Ezekiel 16 that the inhabitants of Sodom were later offered another chance.) I think all mercy and no justice is a flimsy thing. I think denying the literal existence of Hell and the reality of eternal punishment paves the way to dangerous complacency. That’s the real problem of this book.
I thought I’d better take a closer look at the views espoused in chapter 2 before moving on.
The author has an optimistic view of this world and the people who inhabit it. Yes, there are problems. But mostly the world is a “big, beautiful [and] fascinating” place. The disciples are even “students of life.” People are pretty good. His portrait of the hard-working single mother says nothing about her faith, but she is clearly a good woman. Twice he refers to people as potential partners with God They even partner with him in the “ongoing creation of the world.”
Sometimes a Bible passage is discussed with a crucial portion left out. In an extensive treatment of the story of the rich young man, all of the passage is either quoted or paraphrased except for where Jesus says “come and follow me.” Ironically, the author then writes, “Did we miss something?…Shouldn’t Jesus have given a clear answer to the man’s obvious desire to know how to go to heaven when he dies?”
In the story of the two men praying, one humbly and the other not so much, the proud man is described as a “faithful observant religious man” who is “harshly judged.” (Note again the overly positive view of man.)
The author uses some of Jesus’ phrases like “the kingdom of heaven” to conclude that Jesus sometimes uses “heaven” when he means “God”. Another example he gives to support this is that Jesus told “stories about people ’sinning against heaven.’ “ (That last appears refers to at least the prodigal son.)
The author concludes that “when Jesus talked about heaven, he was talking about our present eternal, intense, real experiences of joy, peace, and love in this life, this side of death and the age to come.” The author believes that earth and heaven will someday be one and that the age to come is not a literal eternity.
I think the Bible repeatedly emphasizes man’s fallen state and just how far he is from a transcendent God. The OT shows us turning away again and again and again. My own personal experience with me isn’t any better- the deeper I go, the worse it gets. That’s not low self-esteem talking: I am proud (particularly as I regard God) and selfish. And creation groans, even though it is beautiful. Life is harsh- in it we have trouble (though also hope since he has overcome the world).
One cannot expect to reach reasonable conclusions about what Jesus is trying to say in a certain passage if one leaves out important bits of his words. The conclusion about the definition of age relies on one of several definitions of the word. And since I have only the darkest of suspicions of where this argument is going, that whole portion strikes me as ominous.
In short, an argument is being built on a foundation of sand- wrong view of God, man, and a very uneven reading of the Bible. It reminds me somehow of the one time my sister tried to play tennis with me. My profound ignorance of the rules was enough to prevent any real play from happening.
I like some of this ( "A proper view of heaven leads not to escape from the world, but to full engagement with it…) but not all of it ("…all with the anticipation of a coming day when things are on earth as they currently are in heaven.")
Rob Bell brings up various NT stories that all seem to have different answers to how one is saved. He expands this list of answers with every new story and repeatedly asks, "which is it?", as if it must be one of them and not all of them. The author seems to question the Bible the same way a prosecuting lawyer might cross-examine a witness for the defense, riddling an argument with cracks in preparation for the final shattering blow.
He asks these questions in the same way that he questions orthodox views on eternal punishment in Hell for those who are not saved. It seems that his starting point may be his feelings of revulsion toward the idea of eternal punishment in Hell.
He also sets up some examples of what I would consider bad theology (for example, the idea of an age of accountability beginning at 12 years of age) and uses them to attack orthodox ideas on Hell. He makes it all sound very silly.
He presents a picture of our journey through life with hell waiting below, threatening "to swallow up whoever takes a wrong step." This makes it sound as if we can "accidentally tumble into Hell."
Ultimate truth exists independently of how we regard it. We need to be prepared for that truth to shape us rather than trying to rearrange that truth. This is where the Bible comes in. Proper Bible interpretation involves reading the whole story and treating it like the complex literary text it is- considering abstract aspects like tone and theme and noting how the meaning is sometimes different from the immediate denotation of the words on the page (I’m thinking about things like irony here). Ultimately, one tries to figure out how all those different parts fit together while recognizing that one is not going to get it all figured out in one lifetime.
When I left my class this evening, the sky was absolutely stunning, a one time exhibit of a work by a master artist that will never be seen again. An infinitely creative God can do things like that. This same master artist is also ultimately just, and that justice involves Hell…but at the same time He is incredibly merciful and has provided a way out at great personal cost- so that we don’t perish, but have instead everlasting life.
I think our total depravity is part of ultimate truth.
I get a little angry sometimes when Rob Bell says something about this beautiful life. I mean, it is, but it’s pretty rough if this is the last word. There’s a lot of pain in life. Our sinful state explains it, where would we be without the hope of escaping it, and why was Christ’s death necessary if a final justice isn’t looming ahead?
I do think there this book shows a lack of respect toward the Bible and God.
Title: Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived
Author: Rob Bell
Back Cover: " ‘God loves us. God offers us everlasting life by grace, freely, through no merit on our part. Unless you do not respond the right way. Then God will torture you forever. In hell.’ Huh?"
Inside cover: "…What if the story of heaven and hell we have been taught is not, in fact, what the Bible teaches?"
"It is He who…deem[ed] it to be more befitting His power and goodness to bring god out of evil than to prevent evil from coming into existence."
It’s like hiking cross-country, forcing your way through thorn bushes and trees only to find yourself face to face with a granite wall. You think you have your theological issues all straightened out and then - smack!- somebody you love is hurting enough to make you wonder how God could let it happen. God could have stopped that from happening…
No earth-shattering answers here, just some thoughts, though I do believe there is an answer- God is good, even if I don’t understand how.
Most of us Americans would probably think it makes more sense to cut off the evil before it ever starts. I guess that’s one obstacle to understanding this. Of course if Adam hadn’t been allowed to choose evil than he wouldn’t have had any free will. And we like free will- the movie The Matrix is horrifying precisely because humanity is enslaved.
I can see a little of how God’s power and goodness are displayed this way. Engineers can build robots that do what they want, but it takes a powerful God to create beings that do what they want to and still work everything out for good. God also does a harder thing when He loves unlovely, rebellious beings like us. And He sent His own son to die for us, speaking of things that cause pain…and Jesus was sinless.
When it comes down to it, I really wish God would just forgive everybody and take all the pain away. I think I ignore certain of God’s characteristics here- for example, His justice. And I underestimate the enormity of the sin of rebellion against such a powerful, good God.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.