I was intrigued by the marketing related to Ray Comfort's documentary 180, claiming to instantly change people's minds about abortion through one question.
The film is short and available for free online through their website and on YouTube. While I am quite pro-life (that's another subject for another time and more complex than any politicos want to make it), I actually disliked this documentary and found it ineffective with fallacious arguments.
Are there similarities between abortion, the Holocaust, and murder? Depending on one's view, sure, there could be. However, how we make those comparisons are central.
Comfort jumps from one topic to another in quick-fire succession, not really allowing his interviewees time to think and consider his arguments (not all of which are good or fair by any means). Also, even though he says people changed their minds (and admittedly, they said they did), we need to remember some principles of social psychology. When you have someone in your face who is aggressively interrogating you and you know they won't leave you alone until you agree with them, especially if you don't have a good argument in contrast, then you, too, might simply agree to get out of a situation. While some of the participants seemed truly moved, others seemed to be more annoyed.
I would be more curious to interview them months later to see if it stuck.
He also demonstrated a stereotypic proselytizing that is quite aggressive, emphasizing that someone will go to hell because they are a lying thief. Besides the fact that he does not define blasphemy accurately, this sort of approach has consistently been shown to not lead to lasting change. It's great for the moment to make a decision based on fear, but there is no presence of an individual being drawn to the amazing love of Christ.
Rather, Jesus is simply presented as a really good lawyer. We like to have them around us and on retainer, but we're not likely to be good friends with them...
What I would like to see in drawing people toward Christ and toward the reduction of abortions is not fear tactics and shame-based polarities, but rather toward love and appreciation for life in all forms and situations. It's about improving the world, not just avoiding sin.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Viewing the Bible Through Life Expectancy and Neurodevelopment
I was recently reading a book for a class I'm teaching. Part of it explored the changing life expectancy globally. Most people know that we have a much longer life expectancy now than ever before. What I think we often forget is how short it really used to be (and still is in certain parts of the world).
Here's a couple of stats from 1998 of life expectancy: Andorra: 83.47, Canada 79.56, Nigeria 41.00, Sierra Leone 37.00. That's a big of a discrepancy if I've ever seen one.
But this post isn't about public policy and public health. What I find interesting is looking at the life expectancy in years past. For the US, 77.2 was expected in 2001, 59.7 in 1930, and only 35.0 in 1789. That's a huge jump.
But then think about how life was in Jesus' time. I highly doubt medical care and lifestyle were better than 1789. I saw somewhere that 35ish was about the life expectancy is Jesus' time period.
The first thing this should impact is artistic depictions of Jesus and his disciples. They often appear to be in their 40s and 50s. I doubt it, just from the fact of life expectancy. Plus, biblical scholarship puts them far younger anyway.
And then Jesus dying at 33 doesn't make him seem so young, honestly. Not that that didn't minimize the sacrifice. These types of executions contributed to the lower expectancy.
However, beyond all of this, there are always questions about violence in the Bible. If we take life expectancy seriously, then we should pay attention to average ages. In 1800, the average American was 16 years old. He or she was 36.5 in 2000.
Let's see. Would the world be different being run by 16 year olds versus 36 year olds?
Plus, it is commonly known that the frontal lobes are not fully developed until around age 25. If you don't know the frontal lobes are responsible for executive functioning, like planning, judgment, self-control, etc.
So let's look back at the Bible in context. God is not talking to the modern American with the same education and amount of time to develop (and I'm not trying to imply we're better than those people in biblical times, by the way). God is talking to a people who are predominantly young with non-fully-developed brains. Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense to provide stricter, black-and-white rules that leave no room for ambiguity.
Laws needed to be quite directive because they were acting as the people's frontal lobes. We give our kids very absolute rules in order to protect them. As they get older, we nuance them more because they can handle it. Why do we view the Bible and God's rules any differently?
Here's a couple of stats from 1998 of life expectancy: Andorra: 83.47, Canada 79.56, Nigeria 41.00, Sierra Leone 37.00. That's a big of a discrepancy if I've ever seen one.
But this post isn't about public policy and public health. What I find interesting is looking at the life expectancy in years past. For the US, 77.2 was expected in 2001, 59.7 in 1930, and only 35.0 in 1789. That's a huge jump.
But then think about how life was in Jesus' time. I highly doubt medical care and lifestyle were better than 1789. I saw somewhere that 35ish was about the life expectancy is Jesus' time period.
The first thing this should impact is artistic depictions of Jesus and his disciples. They often appear to be in their 40s and 50s. I doubt it, just from the fact of life expectancy. Plus, biblical scholarship puts them far younger anyway.
And then Jesus dying at 33 doesn't make him seem so young, honestly. Not that that didn't minimize the sacrifice. These types of executions contributed to the lower expectancy.
However, beyond all of this, there are always questions about violence in the Bible. If we take life expectancy seriously, then we should pay attention to average ages. In 1800, the average American was 16 years old. He or she was 36.5 in 2000.
Let's see. Would the world be different being run by 16 year olds versus 36 year olds?
Plus, it is commonly known that the frontal lobes are not fully developed until around age 25. If you don't know the frontal lobes are responsible for executive functioning, like planning, judgment, self-control, etc.
So let's look back at the Bible in context. God is not talking to the modern American with the same education and amount of time to develop (and I'm not trying to imply we're better than those people in biblical times, by the way). God is talking to a people who are predominantly young with non-fully-developed brains. Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense to provide stricter, black-and-white rules that leave no room for ambiguity.
Laws needed to be quite directive because they were acting as the people's frontal lobes. We give our kids very absolute rules in order to protect them. As they get older, we nuance them more because they can handle it. Why do we view the Bible and God's rules any differently?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Utter Absurdity of Inerrency @JohnPiper
On October 15, I saw someone retweet something John Piper tweeted: "The prophets give no evidence of ever using "um" or "ah". These are weak, learned fillers and can be unlearned for Christ."
Now, I'm hoping this was satirical, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone else write about this post, so maybe it was humorous. However, I'm sure someone somewhere believes it. And it demonstrates the absurdity of an extreme inerrency model of the Bible.
For those unfamiliar with interpretation terms, inerrency is the view that the Bible is completely true in every word. The pure form of inerrency holds that it was dictated from God. Therefore, each word (in the original texts) is holy.
If the words really were dictated by God, then this makes sense. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this nor does it even make sense why God would approach Scripture this way.
In contrast, infallibility holds that the message of the Scriptures is true, while certain elements, like exact history or science, do not have to be completely accurate.
Of course, these are gross generalizations of each form, but for summary purposes, there you are.
Back to Piper's tweet. It takes the idea of the Bible being dictated absolutely literally. If it's dictated, and the prophets are the voice of God at the time, then the lack of "um" or "ah" would indicate they were not used by these holy people. However, there are a few problems with this. Most of the writings about the prophets are clearly not meant to be transcripts of their prophecies. Further, even modern transcripts, which would likely be more accurate than ancient ones just due to our ability to record and listen again, rarely include filler words and sounds. The transcript can be accurate and still leave things out.
And then just the judgment that they are weak is absurd. Since Moses had a speech problem, did that make him weak?
When we start worshiping the Bible rather than the Living God, we very quickly lose sight of the message of the Scripture and focus on debating such worthless things as filler words. And dedicate whole blog posts to them...
Now, I'm hoping this was satirical, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone else write about this post, so maybe it was humorous. However, I'm sure someone somewhere believes it. And it demonstrates the absurdity of an extreme inerrency model of the Bible.
For those unfamiliar with interpretation terms, inerrency is the view that the Bible is completely true in every word. The pure form of inerrency holds that it was dictated from God. Therefore, each word (in the original texts) is holy.
If the words really were dictated by God, then this makes sense. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this nor does it even make sense why God would approach Scripture this way.
In contrast, infallibility holds that the message of the Scriptures is true, while certain elements, like exact history or science, do not have to be completely accurate.
Of course, these are gross generalizations of each form, but for summary purposes, there you are.
Back to Piper's tweet. It takes the idea of the Bible being dictated absolutely literally. If it's dictated, and the prophets are the voice of God at the time, then the lack of "um" or "ah" would indicate they were not used by these holy people. However, there are a few problems with this. Most of the writings about the prophets are clearly not meant to be transcripts of their prophecies. Further, even modern transcripts, which would likely be more accurate than ancient ones just due to our ability to record and listen again, rarely include filler words and sounds. The transcript can be accurate and still leave things out.
And then just the judgment that they are weak is absurd. Since Moses had a speech problem, did that make him weak?
When we start worshiping the Bible rather than the Living God, we very quickly lose sight of the message of the Scripture and focus on debating such worthless things as filler words. And dedicate whole blog posts to them...
Monday, October 24, 2011
My New Favorite Bible Translation @CommonEngBible @TBBMediaGroup @audrajennings
Ever since I got the Mosaic Bible two years ago, I have been a big fan of the NLT. However, the recently released Common English Bible has made me betray my beloved NLT and use the CEB primarily.
A lot has been written about the benefits of the CEB (and its downsides). Much of this has been written by scholars with much more education on the topic of translation than I have, so I'll direct toward those. However, what I can say is that it is quite useful. What I loved about the NLT was that it was easy to read while maintaining what I considered appropriate fidelity to the original texts. The CEB takes this a step further, really making the language accessible to people. While it is easy to read, it is also quite easy to listen to. It has been the primary translation used in our church for the last few months, and it has been quite appropriate for lectionary readings both as a group or individually.
Besides its pragmatic benefits, I like a lot of the philosophy behind the CEB. The fact that it was first released digitally (and free through YouVersion) shows that the publishers are really trying to interact with modern culture and also are not necessarily as focused on making a profit.
I like how it was developed interdenominationally and with laity through reading focus groups of people who approached it not only theologically but practically. Those who follow translations know that a very literally accurate translation may be quite unreadable to the modern English speaker...
The aspect of the CEB I appreciate the most is its break with using particular words all the time. As has been discussed elsewhere in the blogosphere and academia, language can lose meaning over time as we become numb to the power of particular words, especially religious words. Sometimes changing the word makes us pay attention to the passage and the meaning again. The CEB does this, not without controversy. However, I have found it to be helpful to re-engage the text and really explore what the Scriptures actually mean rather than what I assume them to mean based on preconceived notions of certain language.
If you haven't explored the CEB yet, I highly recommend you do. The physical Bibles themselves are pretty cheap, although again, it can be found for free digitally in some markets.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
A lot has been written about the benefits of the CEB (and its downsides). Much of this has been written by scholars with much more education on the topic of translation than I have, so I'll direct toward those. However, what I can say is that it is quite useful. What I loved about the NLT was that it was easy to read while maintaining what I considered appropriate fidelity to the original texts. The CEB takes this a step further, really making the language accessible to people. While it is easy to read, it is also quite easy to listen to. It has been the primary translation used in our church for the last few months, and it has been quite appropriate for lectionary readings both as a group or individually.
Besides its pragmatic benefits, I like a lot of the philosophy behind the CEB. The fact that it was first released digitally (and free through YouVersion) shows that the publishers are really trying to interact with modern culture and also are not necessarily as focused on making a profit.
I like how it was developed interdenominationally and with laity through reading focus groups of people who approached it not only theologically but practically. Those who follow translations know that a very literally accurate translation may be quite unreadable to the modern English speaker...
The aspect of the CEB I appreciate the most is its break with using particular words all the time. As has been discussed elsewhere in the blogosphere and academia, language can lose meaning over time as we become numb to the power of particular words, especially religious words. Sometimes changing the word makes us pay attention to the passage and the meaning again. The CEB does this, not without controversy. However, I have found it to be helpful to re-engage the text and really explore what the Scriptures actually mean rather than what I assume them to mean based on preconceived notions of certain language.
If you haven't explored the CEB yet, I highly recommend you do. The physical Bibles themselves are pretty cheap, although again, it can be found for free digitally in some markets.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Sunday, October 23, 2011
We're Adopting!
After
a lot of thought and prayer, Laci and I have decided to pursue adoption, which we’re
really excited about and really feels like our calling. The process takes a
while, but I wanted give you a heads-up about stuff that will be going on for us
in the next several months.
The first stage we’re in right now
is raising the initial funds, so we’re doing a few fundraisers, and if any of
you want to help out with any of them, we’d definitely appreciate it. First,
we’ll be selling some stuff at a craft fair in our hometown of Grand Terrace on
November 5. If you have any homemade crafts you want to donate, that would be
great. We’re also hoping to do a garage sale in the next month or two, so
donations are also welcome to that. Finally, we’re planning on getting people
together to go to TV tapings. If you haven’t been to one, they’re a lot of fun,
and depending on our group size, they’ll actually donate to our adoption
fund!
I know money is tight, so I’m not
asking anyone to donate any money, but if you would like to go to a TV taping or
something, that would be helpful and fun. And your love and prayers are always
appreciated!
Friday, October 7, 2011
Loved As You Are @christianaudio @David_C_Cook
This book is an exemplar of the power of grace through all circumstances and actions. I was not aware of Manning's history and controversy, although the fact that he has kept and grown in his faith through it all makes me respect him even more so. I think his mantra that God loves us as we are, not as we should be is profound, simple, complex, and deeply meaningful. This reminder can remove shame, which inhibits change, and moves us toward openness and freedom to love God and accept love from God.
An element that particularly stood out over the course of this book was the clear way human relationships affect our relationship with God. The psychological community interested in spirituality have described this in terms of God image. However, Manning's experience with his mother, father, grandparents, siblings, church, and wife vividly demonstrate the power of how we may trust God more or less based on our ability to trust other. And even more so, how much we are willing to believe God loves us because others have or have not loved us.
While only God can love perfectly, this is an important reminder to consistently engage in loving acts and love people as they are. This helps them see the face of God, which is the ultimate evangelism. Manning has done just that for innumerable people.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Monday, September 26, 2011
Love or God? @markgalli @christianaudio
The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "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" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "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" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)