If you live in the northeast U.S. right now in late March/early April, it’s kind of a weird season. Looking closely at the tree branches, you may notice tree buds starting to grow… after all, it is spring.

But it’s snowing, and it’s cold. From a seasonal perspective, we are in a moment of tension. A clash between two worlds.

It reminded me very much of life right now. Our bodies, our desires, our thoughts, all ache for this new creation that is coming, but we are ever-present in a world of darkness. Our physical selves are deteriorating and we continually observe the turmoil and decay of a dying world around us. Japan is a reminder of a creation in unrest.

It is appropriate that it is also Lent during this time. Lent is a preparation for what’s to come… a movement towards Resurrection Sunday, towards Jesus as the first fruit of new creation.

We are in a time of tension. A life entangled in the ‘now and not yet’

I thought I would do something a little different here, and post what I think are the Top Ten main points/themes in Rob Bell’s new book ‘Love Wins.’ They are random points and are not in any specific order. Following that are some thoughts I have on the book.

Some quick preliminary points: If you are reading this book with a critical eye. as many are doing, you will absolutely find things you will not agree with. I found this book to be much more theological then his prior books and while some of the questions he addresses are open-ended, he does voice his opinion much clearer then I expected he would.

1. The good news is not simply about entrance, but joyous participation
“when the Gospel is diminished to a question of whether or not a person will ‘get into heaven,’ that reduces the good news to a ticket, a way to get past the bouncer into the club.”

Rob’s point is that ‘life in Christ’ has never been about just ‘getting in’ but thriving in God’s good world.

2. Heaven and Hell are highly relevant as present realities, not future destinations
Heaven is not a place you go to when you die, Eternal life starts in this life and extends to the afterlife. Likewise, Hell is not simply a postmortem prison, but begins as a rejection of God’s love here and now.

3. There are differing viewpoints about how God reconciles the world to himself
Christian theologians throughout history have had differing opinions on who goes where, when, why, and how. Some have suggested God extends grace in the afterlife. Bell’s point is to suggest that there is room for differing opinions.

4. Bell is not a Universalist, but…
Bell does not believe that everybody is eventually saved. The very basis of this book is that Love demands freedom and hence requires a response. “If we want isolation, despair, and the right to be our own god, God graciously grants us that option.” However, Bell does leave open the possibility that the door is left open in the afterlife.

“Will everbody be saved?
or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?
We don’t need to resolve them or answer them because we can’t, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires.”

5.  Many of Jesus’ mentions of Hell do not refer to post-death
The third chapter of Bell’s book is about how Hell can be understood particularly through Jesus. To be clear, Bell does hold the position that Hell extends in the afterlife, but the symbolic uses by Jesus refer to a volatile mixture of images, pictures, and metaphors that describe the consequences of rejecting our God-given humanity. The words used for Hell by Jesus are Gehenna (which is a real place), as well as Hades. According to Bell, the references to Gehenna refer to present/future consequences not a post-death prison.

6. Love can’t be forced, manipulated. or coerced
Hell is the consequence of our choices. Bell is not a Calvinist.

7. The saving love of Jesus is ‘exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity.’
This part gets a bit ambiguous, but what it sounds like Bell is saying is that Jesus is indeed the only way to eternal life, but some people may not know that yet. He uses the analogy that the rock that provided water for the Israelites in the dessert was interpreted by Paul as Christ. I think Bell could have elaborated more clearly here, and I guess I would want to ask him if he thinks this extends to those who would deny the person of Christ within different religious contexts. This is probably the weakest part of the book in terms of clarity.

8. God is the rescuer, not the one we are rescued from
Bell’s concern is that people would find it difficult to love a God that created a universe of eternal punishment. but more so… he says apart from the technical aspect of God dealing with sin, the picture can be misguided into thinking that Jesus rescues us from God
“Sometimes the reason people have a problem accepting the gospel is that they sense that the God lurking behind Jesus isn’t safe, loving, or good.”

9. The Gospel confronts our version of our story with God’s version of our story.
Bell begins with a certain truth that we are loved, and it is Gods story of reconciliation that defines us. A rejection of that story is where Hell begins.

10. Jesus can’t be co-opted or owned by any one culture
“that includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system. We can point to him, follow him, discuss him, honor him, and believe in him, but we cannot claim him to be ours anymore then anyone else’s.”
Bell’s point here is Jesus cannot be put in a theological box.

So Here are my thoughts…

While I don’t agree with everything Bell states theologically, I disagree more with those who think he shouldn’t have written a book like this. The questions he raises are incredibly relevant and important for the Jesus discussion. In fact, his chapter titled “what about the flat tire?” is an array of questions that poke theological holes in commonly accepted evangelical positions. Bell will ruffle some feathers in this book, but I honestly don’t think he is doing this as a marketing stunt or simply to be controversial, I do believe that he is being genuine to himself. Right or wrong, Bell is voicing his opinion and has earned a platform to do so.

Rob Bell is first and foremost, an artistic communicator, so he will not answer questions as propositional responses. I understand that this could be frustrating for some, but that’s just not his style. With that said, I know that I am not being fully objective in my critique because I tend to favor creativity, so have always liked Bell’s writing style. The one problem is that Bell sometimes rides on the edge of orthodoxy and unfortunately allows some open doors for theological conundrums. However, If this is an invitation to dig deeper into these theologically important questions… then that’s a good thing.

Thoughts on the Creation Evolution debate

When it comes to discussions about creation vs evolution, it seems that a typical conversation travels in all sorts of places – from fossil types, to genotypes, to what should be taught in public schools, to days of creation, to science vs faith distinctions, etc…

I wouldn’t want to discourage these conversations, I think they are useful. Some of the arguments on both sides appear to be good, and some are outright silly. However, the question that I think is foundational to these discussions; what I would call the question behind the questions is as follows:

“What is responsible for Life?”

There really are only two possibilities here. Either life is the result of a ‘mind’ or life is a result of matter. And what I mean by matter is not necessarily something physical, but some kind of impersonal substance that is self-sustaining.

Not to get scientific, since I’m not a scientist by any means, I would like to point out that for me, it is much more reasonable to believe that life is a result of mind rather than matter. Here are some quick observations:

The evolution of consciousness
It seems highly unlikely that consciousness could simply emerge from blind chance; That rational thinking individuals have somehow gained the ability to reason from an unintelligent source. Could random mutation produce thought? what observation can we make anywhere in nature that would even support that claim?

Information-rich life
All of life carries cells, which contain DNA, which essentially is information. DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. Micro-biologists are increasingly amazed at how information-rich life really is.

“what has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology… The genetic code is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes. This is not some vague analogy, it is literal truth.”
– Richard Dawkins

“The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.”
– Paul Davies, The Origin of Life II

“Life, consciousness, mind and the self can only come from a Source that is living, conscious, and thinking. If we are centers of consciousness and thought who are able to know and love and intend and execute, I cannot see how such centers could come to be from something that is itself incapable of all these activities… it’s simply inconceivable that any material matrix or field can generate agents who think and act. Matter cannot produce conceptions and perceptions. A force field does not plan or think. So at the level of reason and everyday experience, we become immediately aware that the world of the living, conscious, thinking beings has to originate in a living Source, a Mind.”
–Roy Abraham Varghese

My final point is that often when this Mind/Matter discussion comes up, the naturalist would state that to invoke a mind is to invoke a creator, and therefore it brings religion into the scientific discussion. This is just plain false… This is an observation from what makes most reasonable sense; evidence from the best explanation, not simply a God in the gaps theory.

The Reason for God DVD is somewhat of a companion to Tim Keller’s excellent book of the same title, but can also be a standalone product. The DVD features six 20 minute sessions based on conversations between the author Tim Keller and a group of people who are not Christians. The topic of the sessions are based in six objections to the Christian faith:

1. Isn’t the Bible a Myth?
2. How Can You Say There Is Only One Way to God?
3. What Gives You the Right to Tell Me How to Live My Life?
4. Why Does God Allow Suffering?
5. Why Is the Church Responsible for So Much Injustice?
6. How Can God Be Full of Love and Wrath at the Same Time?

What I like about this approach is that unlike a typical debate forum, or counter-point discussions you typically find on cable news channels, this is more of a sit down and personal conversation. I think that Christians can learn a lot from how Tim handles himself in this forum, and it’s not so much about forcing an opinion as it is also about listening.

It’s interesting to hear some of the similarities between the non-Christians on how they view truth, and their opinion about hypocrisy. None of them seemed to really be atheists as they felt there was some kind of superior being behind it all, but their main objections were towards Christianity.

I will say that one negative aspect is that the folks engaging are just so incredibly polite and seem to hold their emotions in check when conversing. I suspect this might have to do with the fact that they are being filmed, and of course their excellent attitude isn’t a bad thing… It’s a good thing. However, my only point is that it’s not very realistic. I would probably guess that most forums of this nature would contain more tension… after all, discussions about faith and God are generally emotionally driven.

Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed this DVD. I would love to see more of this type of engagement… where conversation is real and questions are addressed. A place where people are not afraid to ask questions.

There was a time in my life when I felt that I could eventually know or be certain of life’s difficult questions. There’s probably a little arrogance in that, but I really felt that things would eventually make sense in a nicely packaged worldview. I don’t believe that anymore, and I’m good with that.

My kids are still young. They don’t know a whole lot about the world yet, but they trust that my wife and I do know enough to lead them in the right path. They don’t ‘know’, they ‘trust.’ And that’s the distinction I want to make.

I am a follower of Jesus, and I do believe in the claims of Christian orthodoxy, but I sometimes question how packaged and refined theology can get. Jesus’ biggest rebuke was towards the religious leaders of the time, and they missed it… most everyone at the time missed it. Do I get it? simply because I have updated documents such as the New Testament, I therefore get it? Of course I have the Gospel, and I ‘trust’ Jesus in that truth… but here’s the rub… I trust the truth, I don’t fully understand it.

The Bible is messy, theology is messy, life is messy. As a creature of structure, I do what I can to make it clean, but sometimes I just have to trust God that I don’t need an answer. Things are too complex… too beautiful for me to grasp and own. Job didn’t get an answer to his question about suffering… He got complexity; he got perspective from God.

In life, there are kids who are born with immeasurable suffering. There are people who go through incredible pain and circumstances that seem very unfair. People die all the time in what looks like an insensible purpose. The world is very much in chaos these days. What is the answer?

Complexity does not mean there is no answer; it just means that you are not capable of knowing the answer. I embrace that.