Donald Miller reviews Love Wins

Christian author Donald Miller has now weighed into the whole Love Wins debate with his own unique review…

I confess I read this book because of all the hoopla on the internet. John Piper hates it, Mark Driscoll wants to say how much he hates it but is tired of launching his enemies onto the New York Times bestsellers list so he talks about it without talking about it. People everywhere are talking about it.

Man, I’m a sucker for controversy so I placed my order.

Read the whole review.

God, That’s Not Fair

Dick Dowsett’s book, God, That’s Not Fair, had been sitting on my shelf, unread, for a number of years and in the wake of the storm in the Christian blogosphere over what Rob Bell wrote in his new book, Love Wins, it seemed like a good point to start reading it. Originally published in 1982, the copy I have is a new edition from 2006 with a new preface by Dowsett. The book makes a case for the necessity of hell argued from scripture and from what we know about the character of God. He also deals with mission, other faiths, suffering etc – anything that we might be tempted to say “God, that’s not fair”. It is a pretty good and accessible read about why the gospel is as it is, and why it is good news.

Regarding hell,  he makes the point that although it may not seem nice to us, it is fair by God’s true and just standards. God is sovereign, sin is worse than we think, but Jesus is better that we think. He frames the book as an imaginary correspondence, question and answer style, between a young Christian away at university, and his home pastor. Dowsett doesn’t attempt to discuss the nature of hell, but makes the point that although we may not like the idea of it, hell is real and Biblical and is consistent with God’s character. What it is like for those there, he doesn’t attempt to discuss. In fact his new preface leaves open the possibility of annihilationism:

When I wrote the first edition, I read passages about lostness, perishing, and the destruction of the ungodly through a grid which assumed all people were immortal. I have had to think again. Is the punishment of Hell unending torment? Or is the punishment relative in length and intensity to the wickedness of the sinner? For the moment I would say that neither position fits comfortably with every scripture.

But that isn’t his point. Dowsett comes from the biblical conviction and that those who do not respond to Jesus in this life are lost and separate from God and which leads, for him, to a missionary zeal for those lost. There is no post-death second chance that we’re told about in scripture. Talking of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in which Jesus mentions the great chasm between them:

Such a comment from Jesus would be pointless unless he had wanted his listeners quite clearly to understand that there was no second chance after death. There is no concept of serving time in Hell before going to Heaven… Those who die in their sins are terribly, irreversibly, lost.

But God is a merciful and compassionate God as well as being a just God. He gives many opportunities to those who are lost to turn to him. In fact “God wants people to be saved”. He passionately wants people to come to him.

So far there have been over 20 centuries in which the Lord has patiently waited in order to give folk the opportunities to become Christians.

Now, we have all heard preachers try to scare the living daylights out of their hearers by giving in-depth descriptions of the terrible tortures that await those who will get there. Time magazine have recently published a photo essay of pictorial depictions of hell throughout history. None of them are nice. To those who object with the doctrine because of the type of evangelism it might promote, he says:

You may object to the very idea of frightening people into the Kingdom the Kingdom, and it is true that fear may not be the best of motives for coming to Christ. But then, whoever has come to Christ with anything but sinful and mixed up motives? Fear is a perfectly valid incentive to respond to Christ. People are in danger. People are lost. They are Hell-bound.

So his response is although it is not ideal to use fear (certainly not the way I want to preach), his response is: if it works, use it. This is not too far away from what Paul was saying about motives for preaching Christ:

Phil 1:18 The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Dowsett’s emphasis is not how the gospel is preached, it is that the gospel is preached. Dowsett comes at the topic making clear the Sovereignty, love and Justice of God and the seriousness of sin. Our reaction to this, Dowsett argues, is to pray and to share the gospel. Since hell is a very real separation from God as a result of sin, there should be an urgency amongst all Christians to help others respond to God’s love and mercy through Jesus. Have we missed opportunities to pray for and chat (naturally) about Jesus to our friends? Then we should repent of the missed chances and pray to be more open to God leading us into those conversations.

Dowsett’s theology is a traditional, reformed and, I would argue, correct interpretation of God’s character and work through Jesus. There is one earthly life for each of us on this broken world which has been damaged and corrupted by the ravages of sin and which often results in injustice pain and suffering for many. However, there is also one enormously loving God who wants us to understand the extent of Christ’s love for us and realise the extent of who he has made us to be. He invites Christians into sharing this urgent message good news with those around us, before it is too late. Love does indeed win. And everyone has the opportunity to accept or reject it.

I would recommend this book for new (or old) Christians who are struggling with the whole concept of how a just and loving God might not save everybody.

Spiritual Aspirin

Dick Dowsett in his book about hell - God, That’s Not Fair:

Too often in our evangelism today the message seems to be that Jesus is the spiritual aspirin for any type of spiritual or emotional headache you may happen to feel. It is hardly surprising that this effeminate Gospel has failed to build a manly church.

Discuss.

Rob Bell – a review from someone who has read the book

The question that has been setting the twittersphere alight over the last few weeks is this: Is Rob Bell a Universalist? It was all started off by a rather uncharitable review of his latest book, Love Wins, by someone who had not read the book. This led to a spate of similar reviews, also by those who had not read it, and a lot of name calling.

Now a review has been written by Tim Challies, and he has actually read the book. Excellent. What does he have to say? Well, the first thing to say is that Tim’s review is not written in a spirit of triumphalism and one-upmanship that characterized so many of the other reviews. However, from what Challies has written it seems that Bell might actually be promoting a universalist position. Christianity Today’s Mark Galli who has also read a pre-publication copy of the book agrees, saying Bell advocates a universalist position and fits into the liberal protestant mould which has evangelism at its heart.

Here’s a relevant quote from Bell’s book that Challies quotes:

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth.

Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.

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.

…

People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.

…

Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don’t.

…

Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name “Jesus” that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation—grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness—the last thing they are inclined to name it is “Jesus.”

…

What we see Jesus doing again and again—in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him—is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.

Assuming that Challies representation of Bell’s book is correct, this raises some questions.

1. As Bell is advocating a universalist position, is he therefore saying that there is no need for the cross of Christ? Although one of Tim’s commenters seems to think so, it does not. Bell still claims that Jesus’ sacrifice is required in order for everyone to be saved. There is still only one way to God – through Jesus -  Bell just believes that all people will eventually get to it. When people start saying that it doesn’t matter how people come to God, that is pluralism, not universalism, and only then does the death of Christ becomes irrelevant.

However, I still maintain that Universalism is wrong, but not heretical. It raises questions about why, if everyone is going to be saved, should we bother with evangelism? Why did Jesus give the great commission if he knew everyone was going to believe anyway? It can only be about a better life now, knowing God in the present, as it cannot be about life after death.

Nevertheless, the weight of scripture is against such a position. Only this morning I was reading through 3 chapters of Luke and came to 4 or 5 references to hell being real and people going there. Now, we can have a debate about what that hell is like or why a loving God would allow some to go there, but those are different questions.

2. Can God still speak through someone when we disagree on a couple of points? The answer has to be ‘Yes’. I like Rob Bell and have been greatly helped by some of his teaching. Because I disagree with him on this does it mean that I cannot hear what God is saying through him on anything else? No! When we look carefully there will not be a single other Christian teacher that we agree with on everything. Calvin – great reformer, but I disagree with him on double predestination. Roy Clements wrote some decent books before he ran off with another man.  The books are still good even after his public fall. Steve Chalke still says some good things even though I think he is wrong by denying penal substitution. If we want to agree with our pastor or Christian teacher on everything, we will find ourselves in a church of one. Whomever were are listening to, we need to think and engage with their words and the scriptures and not just accept their words assuming they must be right. We listen with our brains turned on.

3. How do we react when we are right and someone else is wrong? One of the most distasteful parts of this whole debate has been the triumphalism. Many seem to be rejoicing because their view of Rob has been proven right. Others are talking about the ‘tragedy’ of all the people that Rob is going to lead astray, sometimes appearing arrogant and self-righteous in their prayers for others who follow Rob. We must remember that God is Sovereign and in control and that we are not. We may not even be right on everything ourselves. We must humbly examine ourselves, be willing to be wrong on some issues,  and constantly pray that God will keep us close to him, true in our motives and clear in our understanding.

4. Is it essentially different from vast portions of the church throughout history? So, one Christian leader, albeit one with a huge church and a worldwide public ministry, has said something that the reformed orthodox position would disagree with. Shock Horror – has that ever happened before? Of course it has, all throughout history. And the church is still here, and people are still Christians. As i said earlier, we must humble come before God and try to teach his truth ourselves, and we must be willing to have a debate in a spirit of humility, but it isn’t the end of the church. God is in control.

How do we get into heaven?

Following the recent discussions about Rob Bell’s orthodoxy and his view of hell and salvation, it is worth repeating an illustration that Rob once used in one of his sermons on Philippians a couple of years ago. A lot of the discussion is surrounding who is right and who is wrong – what is sound theology and what is heresy. Good theology is important, but here is a warning about getting our priorities right when it comes to faith and doctrine.

The entrance to heaven is not like that. We do not simply recite the right answers to be granted safe passage into the afterlife. Peter is not standing at the pearly gates giving us a pop quiz. It is about how we live and who we live for. Simple head knowledge is not enough.

Some relevant passages which illustrate the believing and doing aspect of faith:

• Matt 7:21-23 – True Disciples
• Matt 25:31-end – The Sheep and the Goats
• Luke 23:39-43 – The penitent thief
• James 2:14-2nd – Faith and Deeds

And while we’re about it, here’s a sermon I preached a year or so ago on that James passage.

• Audio: Faith and Works
• PDF: James 2 Faith and Works

A hell of a storm for Bell

I’ve been away for the weekend and been off the internet and I’ve returned to find Rob Bell mired in the middle of an orthodoxy controversy over an upcoming book on love and grace and hell. Here’s his video.

As you can see from the video, mostly Bell is just asking questions.

Justin Taylor decided to deride his views based on the video and some sample chapters that he has been sent. He hasn’t read the whole book but feels it is necessary to declare what he thinks Bell is going to say as heresy.

Stand Firm took a sarcastic ungracious tone in their response, again declaring Bell a false teacher and heretic without having read the book. Neither of these responses seem to me to be very Christian.

For the record, I prefer Scot McKnight’s response:

I’ve not seen anything like [the storm surrounding this]. And, yes, the quickness of social media have made this such a big issue … today … and in a week it will all be gone. Justin Taylor once generated almost 100 comments by quoting a blurb of mine that was on the back of IVP’s book by Tom Wright on Justification.

Justin may be right about what Rob believes, but if he is wrong then he owes Rob Bell a huge apology. I want to wait to see what Rob Bell says, read it for myself, and see what I think of it. Rob is tapping into what I think is the biggest issue facing evangelicalism today, and this fury shows that it just might be that big of an issue.

The publicity approach of HarperOne worked perfectly. They got huge publicity for a book. They intended to provoke — and they did it well. I think it is wiser to wait to see the real thing than to rely on publicity’s provocations. Justin bit, and so did many of his readers.

Words like ‘heresy…’ and ‘false teacher’ are flying around the blogs and the comments.

One thing to think about is this ‘what exactly is heresy?’ and ‘when is a difference of opinion merely a difference of interpretation within Christian orthodxy, or when it is taking us outside of it?’ What do we do when we have a difference of interpretation like that? Do we need to shout until everyone thinks we’re right?

Is universalism heresy – When I originally wrote this post I would have said  ‘yes’ as it is very clear from scripture that not everyone is saved. However I would now say that although I think universalism is wrong, it is not heresy, as it is a belief that all are saved through the work of Jesus. Pluralism on the other hand, is as there is no reliance on the work of Jesus. Any means will do.

Is annihilation heresy? I would argue no as scripture can and has been read either way. I vary from day to day on which interpretation of hell i think is right. One thing I don’t vary on is that hell is real. (Ultimately, if you get the judgment of God in its right and huge perspective, i don’t think it matters)

Christianity Today have summarised the debate.

UPDATE: If you’ve read the above you may have worked out what I was trying to day. Jason Boyatt has said it much better.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Hell

From the first book in his epic work on Romans:

Hell is a condition in which life is lived away from God ad all the restraints of God’s holiness. All that is described in this passage [Rom 1:21-32] exaggerated still more, and going on endlessly! In other words, hell is people living to all eternity the kind of life they are living now, only much worse! That is hell. Can you imagine anything worse? It is men and women without any control at all, finally abandoned by God. He ‘gave them over’. He gives them over eternally, and they are just left to themselves and to manifest all that is in them, all this foulness and vileness.

Although there is no sign of raging fires and burning sulphur in his description, Lloyd-Jones adheres to a traditionalist view of hell which is an eternal existence, separate from God and suffering the full consequences for sin. In other words, all of the good in the world comes form God. Hell is a place where all of God’s influence, hence his goodness, is withdrawn and what you are left with is just the corruption, immorality and injustice that we see every day, but magnified. I guess Lloyd-Jones would say that these things are limited in our current world as an act of grace, because God’s goodness is still in the world.

This is the fairly traditional view of hell, but it raises questions. For example, how can people be eternal in hell? We’re Adam and Eve eternal even though they had not eaten from the tree of life? Are humans eternal by nature on their creation or is this eternality give by God to those who are give the gift of eternal life?

Also, if man (and woman) are made ‘in the image of God‘ and yet Hell is a place which God has abandoned, what are man and woman like when the image of God is withdrawn?

Tom Wright’s gets round this view of hell (which I blogged on a while ago) by saying that humans will continue in the state in which they have placed themselves. Those who do not worship Christ have denied the image of God in themselves, choosing instead to worship something else. Consequently, after death, they will continue in a state of existence that is less than the image of God, and more like the image they worshiped but as a less than human creature. Wright is clear to say that his is his theological conjecture, as the Bible is not forthcoming on this question!

Tom Wright on Hell

In his book ‘Surprised by Hope‘ (which I am still reading!) N.T. Wright offers a concise account of the interpretations of the doctrine of Hell and offers his own account (pages 187-198). He categorically rejects universalism as a product of the liberal theology from the first half of the 20th century. However, he also has issues with the traditional interpretation of hell as an ‘eternal torture chamber’, saying that this comes from a medieval ideas of heaven and judgement.

You’d have thought, then, that he would therefore accept the other fairly mainstream interpretation of hell of annihilationism, where, at the judgement, those who have not aligned themselves with Christ simply cease to exist. Wright, however, rejects this view as neglecting parts of the new testament which clearly allude to an ongoing state of existence for those who reject Christ.

Instead, he opts for an interpretation which takes the best arts of both views (whilst acknowledging that, like all interpretations of the doctrine of hell, there is a certain amount of theological conjecture that necessarily goes on!). He argues that human beings, made in the amge of God but flawed through sin, can choose to worship whomever and whatever they want. As they do so, they become more like the person/thing that they worship. So, those who worship, say, money start to define themselves and others in terms of money – as partner, debtor, creditor etc. Consequently, the image of God in them is further diminished. Those who worship God wholeheartedly will become more like Him, as the object of their worship. Wright then applies this to the state of existence after death. Bearing in mind that the whole of creation will be restored under Christ’s rule, those who follow him will be restored into the perfect image of God. Those who do not will get what they wanted too, the image of God in them will be diminished and removed. They will, Wright suggests, continue in an eternal state of existence but in that state the image of God in them will be less that what it should be. They will be permanently less than human. Again, Tom Wright is clear to say that this is his conjecture!

This is the first time I’ve heart such an argument, and I’d have to look into more to comment more fully. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that, as Wright mentions later on, the questions “Who is going to heaven or hell?” and “What is it like?” are not really the right questions t be asking. As God’s salvation plans includes individuals but extends to all creation, the right question is “How is God’s plan of salvation panning out in individual’s lives and in the world as a whole?” or “What is God doing now?”. I’m sure God sees the issue of eternal like and separation from him as much more continuous than our more usual categories of before death/after death.