I don’t want to leave here I don’t want to stay It feels like pinching to me either way The places I long for the most Are the places where I’ve been They are calling after me like a long lost friend
I recently moved to a new home. A house. My husband and I are first-time homeowners. I have 2 kids now. A lot has changed. I was in our apartment since I first moved to Pennsylvania in 2006. We moved to our new home in December 2019. 13 years there. 13 whole years. That’s over a decade and time to plant yourself somewhere. Especially for renting.
Now I’m in my new home—house—I miss my apartment. I miss the memories. I miss the familiarity. I miss the convenience. I lived right across the street from the train station, was near a nice library, and around the block from good friends. Everything was in walking distance with access to various restaurants. It was a walkable town. It felt more like the suburbs of Long Island in which I grew up.
I’m having a crisis of faith right now. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus. I just… don’t believe in all the stuff that comes with Christianity. I don’t want to do the stuff that comes with Christianity, such as:
Attending church
Praying regularly
Reading the Bible
Church often feels like a social gathering—a way to meet new people. I love my church. If I could pick any church to attend, it’d be the church I’m a member of. So why do I choose sleep over worshiping God on Sunday mornings?
I have some go-to apps on my iPhone. Here’s a list of them (in no particular order):
Google Maps: So much better than the disastrous and inaccurate Apple Maps, Google Maps is a lifesaver with its up-to-date traffic information and (mostly) accurate streets. (free)
Remote: I have an Apple AirPort in the kitchen with speakers and sometimes I’ll stream from my iTunes (Mac or PC) to the AirPort in the kitchen. Remote is handy to have when a song comes on that I’m not particularly in the mood for and want to change without running to another room to do so. (free)
UberSocial: A Twitter client that allows you to “mute” certain people you follow on Twitter. It also allows you the option of “quoting” a tweet when attempting to retweet. (free)
SoundHound: Shazaam is the popular sound/song-matching app, but I like SoundHound. It automatically posts songs that it has matched to Twitter and Facebook. (free)
PNC Mobile: I love PNC Bank’s Mobile app that allows me to easily deposit checks simply by taking a picture. I would say that I liked the Virtual Wallet app but the regular PNC Mobile app is just as easy to use for my business account. (free)
Starbucks: I can load my cards onto my phone, reload balances, and use my phone to pay for drinks and/or food. And each Tuesday, I get a notification to download their free iTunes song of the week. (free)
Time Master + Billing: When freelancing for a client of mine, I use the Time Master app to enter job codes, keep track of my time, and see how much the client will owe me. It allows me to easily back up all my data to Dropbox so in case something goes wrong with my phone, I can access past information. This app has more than paid for itself. ($9.99)
Google Voice: In an effort to keep my texting costs down (I am on the 200 texts for $5-dollars plan), I use Google Voice that provides me with my own local number (a separate one from my phone) that people can text to. It has confused a number of my family members and friends that I’ve got two cell phone numbers, but it keeps costs down. (free)
Todo by Appigo: A handy way to keep track of things to do. Set schedules, create checklists and projects, and specify things to do by location, phone number, or website. ($4.99)
Foursquare: A location-based check-in game, and a race to see who can be the top of the leaderboard! (free)
Scrabble: The popular board game comes to life in a digital version. (free ad-supported version and occasionally on sale for $0.99)
Draw Something: It’s like Pictionary but on the phone. You don’t need to be an artiste to have fun. (free ad-supported version and $2.99)
Gmail: Primary email of choice. This app allows me to access all the things I cannot through the Mail app: searching my archives and accessing my drafts. (free)
MyFitnessPal: A tool for tracking calories. I know people who have lost weight using this app, but I can’t seem to get myself together. (free)
YouVersion Bible: Access certain translations of the Bible online and offline. Why carry a Bible to church anymore? (free)
Facebook: The Facebook app helps me to stay connected to friends and family. And now, it’s easier than ever to share links. (free)
WordPress: Whenever inspiration for a blog post may strike me, I have a reliable blogging tool at my fingertips. And if I really wanted to, I could use it for my professional blog. (free)
Reading Anne Lamott makes me want to write. Is that the mark of a good writer? One who encourages other writers to write?
I am reading Bird by Bird, her book on writing and life. To overcome writer’s block, she encourages her readers (who are writers) to write 300 words a day.
Three hundred words a day. I can do that. Right?
—
I have a memory book that I’m writing. In it all are the memories that I can possibly remember. Believe it or not, I don’t remember much. Only about 20 pages’ worth of memories in a small journal out of who knows how many pages possible. 200? Although I have 20 years of journals to sort through and read to remind myself of all the horrible things that have happened to me. Because, of course, I am notorious for recording the negative events in my life rather than the positive ones.
—
Perhaps the following really belongs on my depression introspection blog, but I’ve had a really great year. Since my father died 11 years ago, 2012 has been the best year I’ve had mentally. Physically, I’m still dealing with chronic mono, but I hope that 2013 will bring a year of renewed mindfulness and energy. Normally, the fall and winter months (especially the Christmas season) bring with it sadness and depression, but thank the LORD, it’s been at bay this year. I’m finally accepting my father’s death and doing my best to move forward. I’ve accepted the fact that another year has gone by that I’m not a mother, and that’s okay. Forward. It was President Obama’s slogan during his re-election campaign, but it holds so much meaning for me. I will not let a political campaign co-opt a word that describes how I need to look toward the future.
—
I am trying to read a Bible chapter daily and pray daily. I am using Health Month to do this. I still have not succeeded in exercising. I do not know that I will ever succeed in exercising. I start then stop, in fits, like traffic on the congested Belt Parkway. I do not know that I have grown closer to God. But I am walking by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). I am reading about the Old Testament God—the Heavenly Father who was all wrath and anger and appeasement by animal sacrifice. I like the New Testament God—Jesus, the Incarnation, who is all love and human and emotional. Reading about God through Genesis makes me so glad for Jesus in the four Gospels.
“Whose god then is God? They all want jurisdiction. In the Book of Earth, whose god spread fear? Spread love?” —Tori Amos
—
I fear that my Mac is not long for this world. It is one of the discontinued 13″ white Macbooks (I almost wrote Powerbook—whew!). I don’t use it for anything anymore except to play music and to sync my iPhone to. It was playing music when the song came upon a discordant note and the note kept playing over and over and over and… well, you get the point. It was like a CD permanently skipping. I had to force restart my Mac by holding down the Power button. But unlike the devotees of Mac, I simply cannot afford to buy a new Mac laptop of any sort. It is much too much expensive. But then again, I haven’t been sucked into the cult of Mac when it comes to computers. If I really loved Macs, I’d spend the money. But I don’t. I’d rather plunk down the cash and get a touchscreen Windows laptop for maybe as much money (or a fraction of the cost—I’m not sure how much touchscreen laptops run these days).
I am definitely an “i” girl. I use iTunes, love my iPhone, own an iPod Shuffle and and iPod Touch, and would like an iPad. Apple has won me over in the mobile department. But I figure I can make things work on Windows if need be. I would plunk down the money for an iPad. I just haven’t yet.
—
Look at that. More than 700 words. And the goal was simply to write 300. Can I keep this up? I need to whether it’s through blogging, article writing, or fiction creation. I won’t get better as a writer otherwise.
Before I became a born-again Christian at 16 years old, my problem at that time was that I didn’t have enough “self-esteem” and “self-confidence.” I didn’t believe in myself enough, and I didn’t try hard enough to believe in myself (which to be honest, I didn’t because I was an angsty, grungy teenager who thought it was cool to revel in my depression and suicidal bent).
Enter in born-again fundamentalist Christianity.
Fundamentalist Christianity says that one must not believe in self and only in Jesus Christ. Fundamentalist Christianity has no room for self-esteem, requiring a believer to place his or her trust solely in Jesus Christ.
Then I entered Protestantism and encountered a softer version of the same thing: Solo Christo! (This really refers to a theological belief of salvation, but this is the prescription of many orthodox Christians when it comes to problems with self-esteem.)
For a long time then, I believed self-esteem and self-confidence were wrong. I eschewed these things because my sole worth should be found in God and not in myself. I engaged in “worm” theology: Oh, I’m such an awful, terrible sinner. There is no righteousness in me. All righteousness is found in God, and I’m poor, pathetic, pitiful soul. I suck at life and I’m so lucky God saved me because I’m totally worthless otherwise.
Image from bn.com
Beginning last week, I started reading Jillian Michaels’s book, Unlimited: How to Live an Exceptional Life, and started seriously thinking, Maybe it’s time for me to walk away from Christianity because I like what Jillian’s saying about reclaiming and recapturing my life. I want to have self-esteem. I want to have self-confidence. I want to stop obsessing and feeling like a poor, pathetic little shit all the time.
But as I got further and further into Jillian’s book, I realized that a lot (not all) of what she says actually lines up with scripture. (Her chapter on Forgiveness and Accepting Responsibility was so solid, it blew me away.) And I realized that self-esteem and self-confidence do NOT need to contradict Christianity and God’s word. How?
In Mark 12, a scribe comes up to Jesus to test him. The scribe asks, “What is the greatest commandment?”
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” —Mark 12:29-31
So Jesus lays it down: we are to love God with everything we have first. Then we are to love our neighbor as ourselves.
The assumption is we already love and esteem ourselves. If we do not, how are we able to love and esteem others better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3)? So one must tackle the challenge of learning to love and esteem oneself first before being able to truly love and esteem others better. Consistently treating others better than you treat yourself leads to an erosion of self-love and a path to possible codependency and people-pleasing (needing the approval of others).
An example: think of the mom who sacrifices herself on the altar of her children. This mother is constantly shuttling her kids to soccer practice, gymnastics, ballet class, and Boy Scouts but never takes any time for herself, investing her life in her children at great detriment to her health. She will likely be one stressed out and unhappy mommy. She may have high blood pressure, feel dizzy, and tired all the time. Yet think of the other mom who shuttles her three kids to the exact same activities (still investing immensely in her kids) but once a month, goes to a spa to relax and get pampered. Three times a week, she jogs outdoors for 20 minutes simply to clear her head. Maybe she’ll even join a bi-monthly knitting group so she can engage in her own hobbies so she is invested in herself enough so that she can take care of her children. The latter mom is likely to be in an overall healthier position (mentally and physically) than the former.
A person who invests in herself first is better able to love and serve those around her. I do a better job helping people on 7 hours of sleep than I do 4 hours.
All this talk of self-love is probably making some Christians twitchy. It sounds odd and new age-y. But remember, Jesus assumed that we would already love ourselves and from that, commands us to love our neighbor. As Christians, if we don’t love ourselves, we are sinning. Continue reading “Self-Esteem and Self-Confidence: Shedding “Worm” Theology”→
[This is the FINAL part of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]
Indeed, the end is here! And I know you and I are probably both glad for it.
Bell gives his testimony of how he came to know God’s love and invites his readers to trust God and that “the love we fear is too good to be true is actually good enough to be true.” Bell reminds his readers that the decisions they make today will impact the future, the hereafter.
This invitation to trust asks for nothing more than this moment, and yet it is infinitely urgent. Jesus told a number of stories about this urgency in which things did not turn out well for the people involved. One man buries the treasure he’s been entrusted with instead of doing something with it and as a result he’s “thrown outside into the darkness.” Five foolish wedding attendants are unprepared for the late arrival of the groom and then end up turned away from the wedding with the chilling words “Truly, I tell you, I don’t know you.” Goats are sent “away” to a different place than the sheep, tenants of a vineyard have it taken from them, and weeds that grew alongside wheat are eventually harvested and “tied in bundles to be burned.”
This paragraph begs for an explanation, begs for elaboration because of all the images and stories presented here. But Bell only offers this:
These are strong, shocking images of judgment and separation in which people miss out on rewards and celebrations and opportunities.
Bell glosses over the striking imagery presented in each of the parables he quickly presents, completely ignoring the deeper meaning and symbolism that lies in each because the explanation wouldn’t support his purpose in writing the book. It’s a shame because that large paragraph (not typical for Bell; I’ve done my best to adhere to his short line breaks) prompts more questions than Bell will ever be inclined to answer.
Love is why I’ve written this book, and
love is what I want to leave you with.
I walked away from this book with more frustration and unanswered questions rather than love and peace the fills the soul.
[This is part XIII of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]
Image from covdevotions2010.blogspot.com
Heading into Chapter 7, the reader gets the sense that Bell is wrapping things up. He details the parable of the Prodigal Son very much in Tim Keller-like style, giving equal attention to the elder and young brothers. But then he also focuses on the attributes of the father in how he dealt with his sounds:
The father redefines fairness. … Grace and generosity aren’t fair; that’s their very essence. The father sees the young brother’s return as one more occasion to practice unfairness. The younger son doesn’t deserve a party—that’s the point of the party. That’s how things work in the father’s world. Profound unfairness.
The odd thing as I read that is that well, yes, I agree. God is unfair. And somehow I see this as evidence that bolsters a Reformed theologian’s argument rather than Bell’s idea of religious universalism.
People get what they don’t deserve.
Bell and I still agree.
Parties are thrown for younger brothers who squander their inheritance.
I put on brakes here not because I disagree with the statement as it’s written, but I worry that the implication is that it’s okay to “squander” an inheritance because a party gets thrown anyway. (Romans 6 warns against this.)
As Bell continues to develop his idea of this widely known parable (shifting away from Keller), Bell seems to redefine “hell” as a person living in the enslavement of his or her own selfish attitudes and vices in the presence of a loving and generous God.
Jesus puts the older brother right there at the party, but refusing to trust the father’s version of the story. Refusing to join in the celebration.
Hell is being at the party.
That’s what makes it so hellish.
… In this story, heaven and hell are within each other,
intertwined, interwoven, bumping up against each other.
If the older brother were off, alone in a distant field,
sulking and whining about how he’s been a slave all these years and never even had a goat to party with his friend with, he would be alone in his hell.
But in the story Jesus tells, he’s at the party, with the music in the background and the celebration going on right there in front of him.
Later on, Bell says:
We create hell whenever we fail to trust God’s retelling of the story.
The odd thing is, I see Bell’s connection. But I fear that his conclusion is simply just a leap. This idea is not easily pulled from the text, and when you frame the parable of the prodigal son in the context of a book on heaven, hell, and fate, sure, it somewhat makes sense. But out of the context of Love Wins (and in context of the rest of the Bible), I don’t know that Bell’s interpretation of the story holds up. And therefore, ultimately, I think it falls apart as a whole.
Bell later on admits that people who reject God do suffer punishment:
We’re at the party,
but we don’t have to join in.
Heaven or hell.
Both at the party.
… To reject God’s grace,
to turn from God’s love,
to resist God’s telling [of our story],
will lead to misery.
It is a form of punishment, all on its own.
This is an important distinction, because in talking about what God is like, we cannot avoid the realities of God’s very essence, which is love. It can be resisted and rejected and denied and avoided, and that will bring another reality. Now, and then.
We are that free.
This is the part where I imagine Reformed Christians chafing at the collar at that last statement. But Bell continues on to unequivocally state that yes, hell exists and people can create it. But I fear Bell is too equivocal in what that hell is (negative attitudes and vices).
When people say they’re tired of hearing about “sin” and “judgment” and “condemnation,” it’s often because those have been confused for them with the nature of God. God has no desire to inflict pain or agony on anyone.
God extends an invitation to us,
and we are free to do with it is [sic] as we please.
Saying yes will take us in one direction;
saying no will take us in another.
… We do ourselves great harm when we confuse the very essence of God, which is love, with the very real consequences of rejecting and resisting that love, which creates what we call hell.
I’ll end this chapter analysis with a quote I liked (in light of the parable of the two sons):
Our badness can separate us from God’s love,
that’s clear.
But our goodness can separate us from God’s love as well.
Neither son understands that the father’s love was never about any of that. The father’s love cannot be earned, and it cannot be taken away.
After rambling on some random rabbit trail about “mystics” and the “Force,” Bell asserts that “Jesus is bigger than any one religion.”
Ah, durr. But then we get to Jesus’ claim in John 14 of being “the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Remember that acquaintance of mine I quoted from Goodreads who said that she encountered people more hung up on this statement than on hell? I said I agreed with her.
What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him.
John 3, John 16.
He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will ever know that they are coming exclusively through him.
John 14:6-7; John 17.
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.”
I agree with the overall idea of the statement but I’m not sure it’s as “simplistic” as Bell makes it sound. Jesus has consistently proven to be accessible to the multitudes in a simple manner with a highly complex undertone in his parables and teaching—so complex that even the disciples who were with him rarely “got” what he was speaking of without Jesus having to explain himself first. So let’s watch Bell tackle Jesus’ bold statement of being the only way to God using mental gymnastics (because really that’s what it feels like to me).
And so the passage is exclusive, deeply so, insisting on Jesus alone as the way to God. But it is an exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity.
Dude, what?!
After explaining that exclusivity defines the traditional view of hell (“in or out”) and inclusivity is universalism (all roads lead to the same God), Bell says:
And there is an exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity. This kind insists that Jesus is the way, but holds tightly to the assumption that the all-embracing, saving love of this particular Jesus the Christ will of course include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum.
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 leave the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.
He is as exclusive as himself and as inclusive as containing every single particle of creation.
Bell is careful to write “Jesus is the way” omitting the oft-used word “only” or forgoing the italicization of “the.” (Just an observation. Jesus does not use the word “only” here although one could argue that it’s implied.) The problem here, which Bell raises by bringing in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., is that Bell affirms Jesus is present in all of these different religions that claim to be salvation or divine attainment in some form. It’s like reverse religious universalism, in a way. Instead of all paths leading to the same God, Bell appears to be saying that Jesus is present in all of these paths.
So Jesus is the prophet Mohammad to Islam.
Jesus is nirvana—the place of Enlightenment.
Jesus is Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Shakti, or any of the number of Hindu gods.
For some reason, this idea seems really offensive to me. As if Jesus isn’t accessible in his own form, in his own way, he must materialize in different forms like a shape-shifter of the universe. I think I’d be just as offended if a Muslim told me that Mohammed was a shape-shifter who appears as Judeo-Christian Messiah to bring salvation to Jews and Western Gentiles. My mind can’t fully grasp the idea Bell is throwing out here.
Again, we’re back to religious universalism: yes, all paths do lead to the same God because as Bell seems to say since Jesus is present in all these religions, everyone in these religions reaches the same God.
It’s the most astounding mental gymnastics I’ve ever encountered.
Jehovah God, the Old Testament God was clear that many of the gods and idols that non-Israelites set up were not Him and that He was not present or blessing any of those rituals. (“Baal” is a notable god that Jehovah had a special holy hatred for.) Jehovah was pretty exclusive about that.
But the inclusivity on the side of exclusivity is that He was willing to draft Gentiles who were willing to believe in him (Rahab, Ruth, and Job being prominent examples).
There’s your mental gymnastics from me, but I think Bell wins the gold medal in this competition.
So how does any of this explanation of who Jesus is and what he’s doing connect with heaven, hell, and the fate of every single person who has ever lived?
Bell’s essential answer is that since Jesus is everywhere and in everything, believers in Christ need not worry about the eternal destination of others because “God’s got this.” (Not a Bell quote.)
We are not threatened by this,
surprised by this,
or offended by this.
Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don’t.
I agree that Jesus can be encountered in different ways by different people and perhaps he may not even be known to some people as Jesus or Yeshua. But we must also consider that Jesus warned his disciples about false prophets in Matthew 7 and Matthew 24 (speaking of exclusivity, one of those verses has Jesus mentioning “the elect” whoever and whatever that means).
So while “none of us have cornered the market on Jesus, and none of us ever will,” I don’t believe Jesus was as vague or confusing with his statements as Bell makes him out to be. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the following quote from Bell:
It is our responsibility to be extremely careful about making negative, decisive, lasting judgments about people’s eternal destines.
So is Gandhi in hell? Do we know this for certain? No, I don’t think we do. But we can all hazard guesses for now.
Additional note:
Bell goes on to say that Jesus says “he ‘did not come to judge the world, but to save the world’ (John 12)” but if you continue to read on in that same passage, Jesus speaks of an ultimate judge (the assumption from other Biblical texts is God the Father) who issues judgment or (as the NIV puts it) condemnation. Another way Bell is able to raise questions and ably dodge them because his readers are unable to ask all of the questions he raises by completely ignoring their existence.
[This is part XI of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Note: Chapter 6 is two parts.]
Image from communities.canada.com
I really want to push through chapter 6 for fear I’ll dwell here for days on end like I did with chapters 3 and 4 (which were major chapters really), but I do have a few things I want to point out and we’ll see where things take us.
Bell is pretty straightforward in this chapter, and as the title says, Bell indeed talks about rocks. He details the story in Exodus 17 in which the Israelities are thirsty and can’t find water. God tells Moses to strike the rock and the rock produces water. Bell and his readers jump to I Corinthians 10 in which Paul explains to his audience that “those who traveled out of Egypt ‘drank from the spiritual rock that accompanies them, and that rock was Christ.'”
Paul, however, reads another story in the story, insisting that Christ was present in that moment, that Christ was providing the water they needed to survive—that Jesus was giving, quenching, sustaining.
Jesus was, he says, the rock.
According to Paul,
Jesus was there.
Without anybody using his name.
Without anybody saying that it was him.
Without anybody acknowledging just what—or, more precisely, who—it was.
… Paul finds Jesus there,
in that rock,
because Paul finds Jesus everywhere.
From this brief passage, one gets the sense that Bell is making two points here:
The Israelites were saved in the wilderness by Christ who is the “living water” (John 4:10-15), which Bell really could’ve and, in order to strengthen his argument, should’ve mentioned here. Before the Israelites even knew who was saving them from physical death, the Messiah was already present providing them with the water of life.
Christ can be present in nearly anything, anywhere; the implication being that the saving work of Christ can be present in almost any form. This starts to get loaded.
Here’s the deleted portion of the previous passage:
Paul’s interpretation that Christ was present in the Exodus raises the question:
Where else has Christ been present?
When else?
With who else?
How else?
This opens up a can of worms, in a way. In Velvet Elvis, Bell is careful to show that Paul finds secular truth in Greek philosophy and poetry and doesn’t hesitate to incorporate it into one of his sermons.
[Paul] is speaking at a place called Mars Hill (which would be a great name for a church) and trying to explain to a group of people who believe in hundreds of thousands of gods that there is really only one God who made everything and everybody. At one point he’s talking about how God made us all, and he says to them, “As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offering.'” (ENDNOTE!: Acts 17:28) He quotes their own poets. And their poets don’t even believe in the God he’s talking about. They were talking about some other god and how we are all the offspring of that god, and Paul takes their statement and makes it about his God. Amazing.
Paul doesn’t just affirm the truth here; he claims it for himself. He doesn’t care who said it or who they were even saying it about. What they said was true, and so he claims it as his own.” (Velvet Elvis, p. 079)
And I’m with Bell with the ability to affirm truth wherever it is because God exhibits truth and truth is an extension of God.
But I tread carefully on the ability to find Jesus’ saving work in anything because God can do anything and use anything He pleases for salvation. But the Bible is clear that God isn’t present in everything so Bell’s questions make me a bit iffy on the ways Christ has been present, can be present, and in what ways he can be present. I won’t make any definitive assertions except to say that while I don’t believe God is present in sin or evil, He can (and often does!) use the outcome for good that can lead to salvation.
[This is part VII of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Note: Chapter 4 has been broken up into four parts. Chapter 4, part I can be found here.]
Image by dan | FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Bell continues to expound on the concept that “In the Bible, God is not helpless . . . powerless . . . and [not impotent].” Then he goes through a series of his Socratic questions about God’s attributes and why people were created. And he frames the discussion in a way where it’s either God gets what God wants by all people being saved or God doesn’t get what God wants because some do not.
“God in the end doesn’t get what God wants, it’s declared, because some will turn, repent, and believe, and others won’t. . . . Although we’re only scratching the surface of this perspective—the one that says we get this life and only this life to believe in Jesus—it is safe to say that this perspective is widely held and passionately defended by many in our world today.”
There’s your orthodox Christian view of hell.
“Others hold this perspective (that there is this lifetime and only this lifetime in which we all choose one of two possible futures), but they suggest a possibility involving the image of God in each of us.”
I have no idea what perspective this is. A Christian mystic perhaps?
“. . . And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of ‘second change’ for those who don’t believe in Jesus in this lifetime. . . . At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”
Bell never comes right out and says it but the reader gets the sense that this is the view Bell aligns with. And this view sounds a bit like purgatory in the sense that there’s judgment for wrongs committed in this lifetime but that eventually God will soften a person’s heart and allow him or her to turn to God’s presence. It’s a nice view but one that I don’t see supported by the Bible despite Bell’s support of Jesus saying in Matthew 19 that “there will be a ‘renewal of all things’ and Paul in Colossians 1 says that through Christ “God was pleased to . . . reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” (The context of Colossians seems to actually make Bell’s argument weaker because Paul mentions a few verses later “if indeed you continue in the faith” giving me the impression that one needs to believe in Paul’s teachings.)
To add further support to his argument, Bell drops heavyweight names like church fathers Clement of Alexandria and Origen from the third century and Gregory of Nyssa and Eusebius in the fourth century. Clement of Alexandria appears to have been a gnostic Christian (a Christian form widely rejected by mainstream and orthodox Christianity), Origen was Clement’s student, and Eusebius seems to have been a student of Origen (although Eusebius seems to be considered well-respected church father). Bell pushes the idea that “the ultimate reconciliation of all people to God” was a common belief in early church history. (Hence, how Bell gets away with saying at the beginning of the book that he’s not saying anything new.)
Although Bell tries to shift the wording slightly to attribute it to these early church fathers, the reader can tell that Bell’s leanings are in this category:
“Central to their trust that all would be reconciled was the belief that untold masses of people suffering forever doesn’t bring God glory. Restoration brings God glory; eternal torment doesn’t. Reconciliation brings God glory; endless anguish doesn’t. Renewal and return cause God’s greatness to shine through the universe; never-ending punishment doesn’t.”
I am really, really resisting the urge to fire Socrates-like hypothetical questions after that quote because it haughtily assumes that Bell knows the mind of God and what brings Him glory in the end. Do I want suffering, torment, anguish, and punishment to be what brings God glory? No. And does it? From my perspective, I don’t think so either. But I can’t determine anything from God’s perspective. Since I am not God, I cannot definitely determine or define what brings Him glory.
Analysis of Chapter 4 in Rob Bell’s Love Wins will resume tomorrow. I compose these posts daily and today had to turn my attention to other pressing matters (like completing the PowerPoint slides for a class I’m teaching at the library next week). If you’re absolutely hungry for an original post from me today (though I doubt you are), I wrote up a review on Britney Spears’s latest album Femme Fatale over on my other blog, Pop! Goes the Music. If you’re a Britney Spears fan or enjoy pop music, you may want to check it out.
On this blog, however, tomorrow we’ll look at “Does God Get What God Wants?” An interesting question to delve into considering that the Bible says “The Lord is not . . . wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (II Peter 3:9)
Also, there are some comments from the last post I hope to respond to tomorrow as well. There are some interesting points that I’d like to address.
[This is part II of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]
Here is a summary of Chapter 1 for you:
For real. When I began reading Chapter 1, I thought to myself, I’ve read this already. No, I hadn’t. But I’d heard it before through Bell’s video dramatization. (Most of his speech is derived from Chapter 1.)
And so I breeze through Chapter 1 because yes, some of it I’ve heard before but then there are parts that make me wince:
Renee Altson’s experience of being raped by her father while reciting the Lord’s Prayer and assorted Christian hymns
The Eastern European Muslim who refuses to set foot in a Christian Church in America because the Christians in his country rounded up all the Muslims and executed them
The Christians who stand on a busy street corner with signs, screaming into bullhorns about judgment and hell
Bell goes through a list of possible things on how one gets to heaven. Actions? Behaviors? He even picks apart the “personal relationship with Jesus” answer that many Christians offer.
“The problem, however, is that the phrase “personal relationship” is found nowhere in the Bible.”
Bell has me in agreement with him on this issue. So far. Then he has to go and ruin it by saying the following:
“Nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures, nowhere in the New Testament. Jesus never used the phrase. Paul didn’t use it. Nor did John, Peter, James, or the woman who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews.”
Ashes were used in ancient times, according to the Bible, to express mourning. Dusting oneself with ashes was the penitent’s way of expressing sorrow for sins and faults.
I had planned on going to an Ash Wednesday service at a local Roman Catholic Church today but for various reasons, won’t be able to do so.
In 1998 when I became a born-again Christian in an independent fundamental Baptist (IFB) church, the pastor (a former Roman Catholic) bashed Catholicism in nearly every possible way. Even though I finished my schooling in a Roman Catholic school 2 years later, I walked away with a dismal view of Catholicism, its doctrines, and practices.
In 2007, I joined the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). The PCA is a Christian denomination that still holds to Bible-based preaching but offers a liturgical structure similar to that of the Roman Catholic Church. After nearly a decade of being away from a liturgical service, my first experience back was a little jarring. After years of making the Bible as my only authority for Scriptural practices as an IFB, becoming a Presbyterian had me reconsidering church traditions as a supplement (not a replacement) to the Bible for Scriptural practices. (Let me state here that the Bible’s authority takes precedence over church traditions and church traditions clearly in conflict with Scripture should be modified or discarded.)
An acquaintance on a message board who went from born-again Protestant Christianity to Roman Catholicism once suggested that Catholicism may appeal to me again in the future. The likelihood of my becoming a Roman Catholic again is slim, but in a way, he was prophetic: the structure, reverence, and church traditions within Catholicism have reappealed to me and continue to do so the older I get (in age and in faith). Continue reading “Ash Wednesday and the Beginning of Lent”→
I am ADHD central. If you check out my sidebar, you’ll see I’m reading several books at once. I’ll read a few pages in one book then read a few pages in another before jumping to another book. It takes me a long time to finish books this way but it satisfies the variety of information my attention span craves. (I suppose that says I have little to no attention span.)
So I’m not up for reading particularly long Bible passages on most days. In fact, I’m usually averse to it. (The Bible can be so dry and dull in some areas!) But what I do each day—and any Christian can do this—is read one Bible verse. A full sentence. I use YouVersion’s Top Verses to Memorize reading schedule plan for this. Or you can flip open to any book in the Bible. Or go chronologically. Your choice.
I usually find that I’ll read a few more verses to get a proper context and then be done. Some chapters are very long and that often discourages me. But one Bible verse, one simple nugget from God’s word counts as Bible reading and don’t let anyone tell you any different.
If people can read five chapters in a day or the Bible in a year, good for them. Maybe you’re like me—you’re lucky to even crack the holy book open. But just one verse can do it.
But don’t do it mindlessly either. Make that verse count. Read it and think about it. If it’s an odd verse about dashing your enemy in pieces or so-and-so begat so-and-so that doesn’t resonate with you, flip to another verse that makes sense to you. (The Psalms and Proverbs are always good for this.)
Image from my.opera.com (user: yulenka)
When you read about the heavens declaring the glory of God (Ps. 19:1), think about how awe-inspiring it is to see the heavens from the cabin of an airplane. Or the rays of sun floating above the clouds at 40,000 feet above ground. When you read Jonah, see if you find yourself needlessly angry (as he did) or neglectful of any duties you’ve been assigned to. The Bible isn’t mindless and a brief reading of it doesn’t need to be either.
One way I’ve been able to get Biblical truth is by reading books based on Scriptural truth. It’s nice and it’s helpful, but it’s not the Bible. Reading snippets of Charlie Sheen’s recent crazy quotes are comical and (yes, even) awesome, but when you watch the context those snippets came from, the quotes are actually sad. Original context changes everything so one really needs to go straight to the source instead of relying on quotes elsewhere that have the potential to change the meaning.
Just one verse a day: available on BibleGateway.com, Bible.com, Christianity.com, and a whole host of other Bible-based sites. Make a conscious effort to get into the daily habit of reading one verse. You may read more but read at least one verse actively and meditate on it afterwards.
Just like savoring a really delicious, decadent dessert can be more satisfying than scarfing down a burger and fries on the fly, understanding one Bible verse is better than mindlessly flying through the Bible in a year.
Again, to belabor my point:
read one verse,
meditate on it,
then digest it (allow it to affect your life somehow).
God commissions Jonah to preach repentance from sin to the town of Nineveh (or else God will bring calamity upon the town). Jonah, an Israelite, hates the Ninevites who are enemies of Israelites. Jonah’s not really happy about this commission from God because He knows God won’t act ruthlessly against these people so he runs.
He flees. He does all he can to get away from God and the mission he’s been sent to do.
After causing grief in the lives of some sea men who are caught in a tempest, they throw him into the water where he gets swallowed up by a whale for three days and three nights. Jonah repents of his attempt to escape God and his mission and the whale vomits him out on to land.
Jonah, eager to get his mission over with, completes a three-day journey to Nineveh in one day. He walks into the city crying, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” From what readers can tell, Jonah does not elaborate on this statement; he only repeats that Nineveh’s doomed in 40 days.
And what Jonah expected to happen happens. The Ninevites repent and turn to the God of Israel, asking for forgiveness from their wicked ways.
How frustrating for Jonah. This turn of events makes God spare the lives of these people.
In the last chapter of the book, Jonah sits outside of the city waiting for what he knows will not happen: the destruction and complete annihilation of Nineveh. He rants at God angrily for having the following attributes:
Being gracious
Being merciful
Being slow to anger
Abounding in steadfast love
Relenting from disaster
Jonah hates the fact that God extends these attributes to people he can’t stand and begs for death. God answers him and challenges him:
“Do you have good reason to be angry?”
At first, Jonah doesn’t answer. God leaves it alone.
Then the sun and scorching heat bear down on Jonah and God allows a plant to grow over him to give him some relief. This makes Jonah happy.
Then God allows a worm to kill the plant overnight, leaving Jonah back in the sun and heat again. Again, Jonah puts his life back on the table, begging to die. God calmly asks:
“Do you have good reason to be angry about the plant?”
Jonah rages now: “Yeah, I got good reason to be angry. So angry I want to die!”
God declares checkmate against Jonah, challenging Jonah’s care of a dead plant that he did not labor to produce against God’s care for the people and animals of a big city that He created.
That’s the end of the chapter. No further response from Jonah. My supposition is that either Jonah was probably too pissed off to continue writing what occurred after or that Jonah was too embarrassed by his subsequent reaction that he didn’t record it. Perhaps God, in His loving compassion, didn’t require him to.
In the reading of this chapter, I discover that I am very much like Jonah. I run and flee from God. I don’t like the tasks He’s put before me and I’d rather do something else. And Tuesday night, I was angry—angry unto death.
Like Jonah, I need to accept what God’s mission is for me (job) rather than the mission I want to create for myself (motherhood). To quote Adam Savage from the hit TV show “Mythbusters,” I’ve been telling God:
“I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
It is clear in a variety of ways that God’s mission for me right now is to focus on my job. He is blessing in me in that realm through agent interest, independent contracting, further education, increased job responsibilities, and possibly a new position. I’ve been a complete fool to overlook the ways that God is blessing me in this area.
And while I’d love to become a mother, it’s clear that’s not what God wants for me right now. While it makes me sad and it’s okay for me to grieve over the death of this dream monthly, I need to press forward with the mission God has charged me with rather than trying to run away in an opposite direction, causing grief to those around me. Am as I happy about my mission as Jonah? Probably, since I’ve been hoping for my mission to come to fruition for a while. But I’ll try to accept where God has me and what He wants me to do before I become a mother (should that ever happen).
Analysis of Chapter 4 in Rob Bell’s Love Wins will resume tomorrow. I compose these posts daily and today had to turn my attention to other pressing matters (like completing the PowerPoint slides for a class I’m teaching at the library next week). If you’re absolutely hungry for an original post from me today (though I doubt you are), I 
Image from goldenspikelutheran.files.wordpress.com
Image from 
This Journey Is My Own 