“The Help”: In Defense of a White Woman Writing about Black Women

Apparently there was an uproar about Kathryn Stockett’s best-selling novel, The Help, about black maids oppressed by their white employees. Now that the movie’s out, the uproar is even louder. Tons of people (both white and black) have claimed the book is racist and historically inaccurate. Ms. Stockett isn’t doing too bad in spite of this—at a nearby speaking engagement, she was charging $65 for admission.

I pose the question, then, that my husband posed to me last night: why is it racist if a white woman writes about black women experiencing racism but not racist if a black woman writes about how white women treated black woman during a time of racism?

As a writer, I say Ms. Stockett is free to express her mind about her “fictionalized” book. (I’ve heard that The Help is really a fictionalized version of true stories from Mississippi.) It’s a novel which means that it’s fiction which means that it doesn’t need to be the most historically accurate book ever.

As a black woman, did The Help offend me? A little. I bristled during the first hundred pages of the book. Then I jumped to the end to see if the author had some kind of Afterword, which she did. I’m not sure I would have continued reading the book had I not read the Afterword. It makes me wonder whether Stockett was a little girl influenced by a black maid who just suddenly disappeared because her racist momma might have fired her and was atoning for her parents’ sins.

There is nothing Sambo-ish or overtly racist about this book. (Maybe the movie is different?) The main black women, Aibileen and Minny, are not idiots. I think Stockett happened to do a very good job of portraying black women who lived in the mundane: they were maids beholden to white employers who didn’t physically abuse them but still mistreated them. So these black women got back at them in a mundane way.

People complain that Skeeter is the white woman who “rescues” these black women. I see Skeeter as part of the majority ruling system that helped to make things right (again) in the a somewhat mundane way. She didn’t lobby Congress or hold hands with Minny and walk down the street in a march. She turned a racist institution upside down by publishing a book about black maids dishing on what it’s like to work in white households. Skeeter would have been nothing without the black maids who shared this information with her so no, they weren’t necessarily beholden to the “white woman” to “rescue” them.

America is a free country last I checked, and Stockett is free to write about black women as she imagines them just as Alice Walker is free to write about white women as she imagines them without being racist. Was there a lot about the civil rights movement that was left out? Heck yes! It’s very much (as Melissa Harris Perry argued against) Real Housewives of Jackson, Mississippi with a definite focus on the white women in the households. But there’s a lens that focuses in on the maids in those households too.

Black people are rarely (if ever) satisfied when white people write about racially sensitive times such as the early 1960s. White people don’t ever seem to get it right because they don’t seem to “understand” the plight of black people from those eras. But that’s what imaginations are for. And with the millions of black women in America during the 1960s, it leaves a world of possibilities.

Post a Day was nice but…

Image from propitichingonline.com

… I can’t think of something to write every day. I’m not the type of person who likes to sit down and write the following:

Today, I got up at 4:45 am EDT to watch Prince William & Kate Middleton get married! It was such a beautiful wedding and I enjoyed every minute of it! Then I went to work and could barely keep my head up. I had Chick-Fil-A to rejuvenate me at lunch but the drive-thru line was so long and the parking lot was completely full! I had dinner at Ruby Tuesday’s afterward: steak and grilled mushrooms with a side of garlic mashed potatoes and steamed broccoli—yum! Then I passed out 11 pm because my body doesn’t like to go to sleep at a decent time. All in all – a fantastic day!

*yawn* I don’t care. Neither do you. I’ll probably switch to Post A Week.

I like to write about things that inspire me or make my brain tick. Problem is (and this REALLY bothers me), I’m long-winded. I can’t write a freakin’ short post. It’s always got to be the next magnum opus.

I’m going to be taking Michael Hyatt’s advice and taking a personal retreat to evaluate my career and life goals. That’ll probably include what I want to do with this blog or any other blog. I’ve just been living my life haphazardly (that’s pretty much the way I do everything really) instead of living it intentionally. We’ll see what happens if I try to live my life with intention and trying to drive it instead of having my life drive what I do.

If you’re interested in learning more about Michael Hyatt’s Creating Your Personal Life Plan, click here. (No, I’m not being paid for this; I’m just touting his plan because I think it’s a useful tool.)

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places

I have tried so hard and so desperately to maintain contact with my paternal cousins. And except for the few that I was able to reconnect with in August, the majority of them don’t seem to want to have anything to do with me.

It’s tough because I’m an only child and since my father passed away in 2001, I’ve desperately wanted to connect with my cousins on an adult level and build a friendship with them. But they are in a totally different place than I am. And being around them feels like being back in high school with the popular cliques.

(Did I mention I hated high school so much I passed up getting a yearbook?)

Unfortunately, the cousins I feel shut out by are the cousins I’m most likely to encounter. I feel like nothing I ever do is right. Nothing I do is ever good enough and by all accounts, I’m a completely loser in their eyes.

I don’t know why I need their approval so much. That’s a lie; I do.

Because if I let the connection with my paternal cousins die, it will force me to accept that the family member who bonded us together is gone.

Because I have this Daddy Complex and I just can’t let my father die. I keep trying to find ways to keep him alive even though December will have been 10 years since he passed away. I’m hoping to reconnect with my last living paternal uncle this summer who was nicknamed after my father. He seems really nice.

Everyone who talks to me knows how miserable I feel around my paternal family. I can’t enjoy weddings. I could go on and on about how my wedding was a hot disaster to my family because I was a strict fundamentalist and wouldn’t pay for other people to have alcohol. I had a DJ and I didn’t even want that. I didn’t get to eat the dinner I paid for that night. The appetizer I did have triggered an allergic reaction that almost made me throw up. I got sick with a bad cold the next morning. My wedding, in my eyes, was a failure and a terrible mess. I barely remember the highlights. (In retrospect, I wished I had hired a videographer because I remember almost nothing from the reception.)

Although I thank GOD that my marriage has turned out to be better than I could have ever dreamed.

I’m caught in this odd place because I want to know how to love my cousins as God would want me to. Does it mean shutting them out of my life by not going to the events they invite me to? I’m not sure. I’ve invited people to visit me but they haven’t. I’ve been to their homes and they’ve never been to mine. I keep wanting to make one last attempt to reach out to them for my 30th birthday party but I probably won’t pay for people to have alcohol there either. (I’m not averse to it anymore, but I’m poor and not well stocked.) And of course, if they’re there, I’ll have more anxiety about impressing them rather than just simply having a good time with people I’m mostly comfortable with. It’s my birthday and for the past several years, I’ve had lousy birthdays. I want this one to be fun and fabulous.

As I look forward to my 30th birthday coming up in February, I want to work on two things:

  1. Obsessing less about what people (who don’t care about me) think
  2. Eliminating energy-sucking people and their negative attitudes from my life

For me, my cousins are energy suckers and they don’t even know they’re doing this to me. I’m not sure I can broach the subject with them without sounding like a whiny child. The fault doesn’t lie entirely with them though, of course; I let them do this to me.

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. —Eleanor Roosevelt

My maternal female cousin (and Maid of Honor) challenged me to cut them out of my life as much as I could. And after giving it some thought, I agree with her. I get such agita when I think of being at a function with all of them. (Except for the one that’s coming up in the summer since it involves the paternal cousins I like.) It’s time for me to stop waiting for an excuse to land in my lap and start learning to say no right now.

It’s also probably worth mentioning that these particular cousins and I have next to nothing in common other than being related. As far as I know, they’re not practicing Christians; they’re single; frown upon brothas and sistas dating Caucasians; love to go to bars and clubs; drink tons of alcohol; and are into entertainment, fashion, and pop culture trends.

I’m an evangelical (mostly orthodox) Christian; married to a white guy; feel out of place at bars and clubs; drink beer or wine once a week; and is lucky to even know who Snooki is. I’m boring: I read books, write blog posts, revise a novel, listen to music, like board games, and have an occasional beer or wine. I don’t watch TV (or have cable anymore) and watch movies rarely (although this action-packed blockbuster summer might throw me for a few migraine doozies).

I just keep looking for love in all the wrong places.

Love Wins: Book Review (aka Cliff Notes Analysis)

On Goodreads, I gave Rob Bell’s book Love Wins three stars. I might have given it 2.5 if I had the option.

I went through a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis (but not as thorough as I would’ve liked to be!) outlining some of the issues I had in the book. Let’s see if it’s possible to recap:

Preface: Raises more questions than it answers, book has no notes, footnotes, endnotes, or bibliography. Further reading doesn’t cut it.

Chapter 1: Questions about heaven and hell that are set-up for the rest of the book.

Chapter 2: Heaven is a place on earth. God will eventually redeem and restore this broken world.

Chapter 3: Bell says Gehenna was really the city dump in Jesus’ day. Not a spiritual place of eternal torment. Bell says people can still reject God in the afterlife but leaves the door open for eventual repentance. He introduces an idea similar to purgatory in Catholicism. Then he says everyone will eventually be reconciled to God.

Chapter 4: Bell asks: Does God get what God wants?  What is it that God wants? “‘God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim. 2).” Bell says contradicts himself in this chapter by saying that yes, some people believe God gets what He wants through eventual universal reconciliation and restoration but that God’s love allows for the freedom to reject him if someone wishes to do so. He adds that people don’t need to believe in the traditional doctrine of hell to be a Christian and that people can assume there’s a chance for repentance in the future.

Chapter 5: Bell tells his readers that Jesus dying on the cross and rising again the third day was a very beautiful thing. Don’t mar this beauty with nasty talk of eternal exclusivity via the traditional view of hell.

Chapter 6: Bell says that (since Paul says that) Jesus was present in the rock that Moses struck to give water to the Israelities, so Jesus is present in anywhere or anything. He also puts forward the odd idea of reverse universalism which posits that Jesus is present in all paths (ie, Jesus can be Mohammad for Muslims, Vishnu for Hindus, or nirvana for Buddhists).

Chapter 7: Using the template of the parable of the prodigal son (or the two sons), Bell says that we will all be at a party/celebration (heaven) and we can choose to exhibit negative attitudes and vices (hell) during the party if we want to. We can reject the Father’s love.

Chapter 8: Bell reminds his readers that people can miss out on rewards, celebrations, and opportunities and that love wins.

(And no, I would not have been able to do the summary above had I not done the analyses first.)

Love Wins Quotes

A few quotes from Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, that resonated with me on some level.

“So when people say they don’t believe in hell and they don’t like the word ‘sin,’ my first response is to ask, ‘Have you sat and talked with a family who just found out their child has been molested? Repeatedly? Over a number of years? By a relative?’

Some words are strong for a reason. We need those words to be that intense, loaded, complex, and offensive, because they need to reflect the realities they describe.” (p. 72)

“Often the people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death.” (p. 79)

“I have sat with many Christian leaders over the years who are burned out, washed up, fried, whose marriages are barely hanging on, whose kids are home while the parents are out at church meetings, who haven’t taken a vacation in forever—all because, like the older brother, they have seen themselves as ‘slaving all these years.’ They believe that they believe the right things and so they’re ‘saved,’ but it hasn’t delivered the full life that it was supposed to, and so they’re bitter. Deep down, they believe God has let them down. Which is often something they can’t share with those around them, because they are the leaders who are supposed to have it all together. And so they quietly suffer, thinking this is the good news.

It is the gospel of the goats,
and it is lethal.

God is not a slave driver.
The good news is better than that.”  (p. 181)

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 8: The End Is Here

[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.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 7: The Good News Is Better Than That

[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.

It just is.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 6: There Are Rocks Everywhere (Part II)

[This is part XII of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins. Note: Chapter 6 is two parts; read Chapter 6, part I here.]

Image from http://www.galacticbinder.com

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.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 6: There Are Rocks Everywhere (Part I)

[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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 5: Dying to Live

[This is part X of a multi-part series on Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.]

Image from http://www.turnbacktogod.com

Chapter 5 is a heckuva lot easier to summarize:

Jesus died and rose again. As a result of that action, he has forever reconciled us to God the Father.

This is not controversial stuff.

As a result, there’s not much that I need to ponder over or challenge because in this chapter, Bell lays out Jesus’ sacrifice and he does it in a way that is typically Bell-esque: with original analogies and beautiful images. (When Bell says something clearly, it’s like bursting into a magnificent, clear blue sky after having endured dark shadows and lingering gray storm clouds.)

Bell makes an interesting point that I’ve never heard of before (but find interesting): he speaks of John (the Gospel writer) numbering signs all throughout his gospel. In John 11, Lazarus’s resurrection from the dead is the seventh sign of Jesus outlined in the gospel.

Now ask: Is the number seven significant in the Bible?
Does it occur in any other prominent place?

Well, yes, it does. In the poem that begins the Bible. The poem speaks of seven days of creation.

But there’s one more sign in John’s Gospel. In chapter 20 Jesus rises from the dead. Now that’s a sign. The eighth sign in the book of John. Jesus rises from the dead in a garden. Which, of course, takes us back to Genesis, to the first creation in a . . . garden.

I’d never thought of things that way. Reading that blew my mind. Either John was a very clever fiction writer or God is the most amazing storyteller I’ve ever read.

What is John telling us?
It’s the eighth sign, the first day of the new week, the first day of the new creation. The resurrection of Jesus inaugurates a new creation, one free from death, and it is bursting forth in Jesus himself right here in the midst of the first creation.

… John is telling a huge story,
one about God rescuing all of creation.

I love it. John continually points his readers back to Genesis, constantly linking Jesus to God the Father, Creator of all things from the get-go (Jn 1:1) and here it is even in the final chapters of John and I totally missed it. It’s beautiful to see.

As I’m breathless and taken away by this beauty of discovering the symbolism in everything Jesus does, Bell kind of ruins it for me in “wait-a-minute-this-is-a-book-about-heaven-hell-and-the-fate-of-every-person-who-ever-lived-moment.”

How many people, if you were to ask them why they’ve left church, would give an answer something along the lines of, “It’s just so . . . small”?

No one I know really. They’d have tons of other reasons but it wouldn’t be that.

Of course.
A gospel that leaves out its cosmic scope will always feel small.
A gospel that has as its chief message avoiding hell or not sinning will never be the full story.
A gospel that repeatedly, narrowly affirms and bolsters the “in-ness” of one group at the expense of the “out-ness” of another group will not be true to the story that includes “all things and people in heaven and on earth.”

And I think to myself, this is not the gospel. No one I know or have ever heard in Biblical Protestantism (ok, and Anabaptism) preaches a message like this. (I’m not sure whether to classify this as a false dichotomy.) The main message of the gospel, which can often be “ye must be born again,” is always Christ and Him crucified.

Why was Christ crucified? To reconcile us to God.
Why do we need to be reconciled to God? That’s a question, or more accurately, a tension we can be free to leave fully intact.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part IV)

[This is part IX 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, part II can be found here, and part III can be found here.]

Let’s work on closing out Chapter 4 of this book.

“Many people find Jesus compelling, but don’t follow him, because of the parts about ‘hell and torment and all that.’ Somewhere along the way they were taught that the only option when it comes to Christian faith is to clearly declare that a few, committed Christians will ‘go to heaven’ when they die and everyone else will not, the matter is settled at death, and that’s it. One place or the other, no looking back, no chance for a change of heart, make your bed now and lie in it . . . forever.

Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives.

A Twitter friend of mine said this in her Goodreads review of this book:

“Speaking of Jesus, I don’t find many non-Christians that are hung up on the idea of hell. Most I know are hung up on the idea that Jesus is the only way. And that the Bible says seemingly contradictory things and you’d be stupid/silly to believe it. “

Doctrinally, I’d say that’s been my experience too. In general, I’d say non-Christians tend to be averse to Christianity because of the hypocrisy that runs rampant among many of its believers. (Side note: Tim Keller makes a great point in regard to why this behavior occurs among Christians in Chapter 4 of The Reason for God.)

As for the bolded part about not having to believe in eternal punishment/torment/hellfireandbrimstone to be a Christian, I start to get a little twitchy. Because even though the basic rule of being a Christian is being an obedient (“as best as you can”) follower of Jesus, there are all these doctrines and tenets that have kind of been hung around his neck as part of the package and it’s difficult to distinguish whether you can have Jesus without hell.

So can you? Continue reading “Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part IV)”

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part III)

[This is part VIII 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 and part II can be found here.]

The other issue I have with Bell here about the talk of restoration, renewal, and if you will, “second chances,” is that gives people no real need to come to Jesus. If all things will be restored in the end anyway, what does it matter if I murder someone I don’t like? Even if I get fried in the electric chair, I still eventually go to heaven maybe after a brief punishment for my sins.

Although hell is an unlikable place to be or to think about (if you take it seriously), the purpose of it is for judgment. When a criminal is deemed guilty in a court of law and sentenced to life in prison, he is sent to jail until death. Hell is the jail that never ends.

But let’s take a step back. And we’ve got to follow Bell’s suppositions (maybe? he is careful to never outright say he believes these things) about what ultimately brings God glory in the end: restoration, reconciliation, and renewal.

Think of a terrible, gruesome time during the 20th century. I’ll give you a hint of where I’m going with this: think of a specific dictator who murdered tens of millions of people. There are at least three you can choose from.

1 . . .

2 . . .

This is kind of like an annoying email forward now, isn’t it?

3.

I’ll choose Hitler since Stalin and Tse-Tung (Zedong) don’t seem to strike the same kind of terror into Westerners’ hearts.

Adolf Hitler is estimated to be responsible for at least 12 million murders during World War II. When Hitler shot himself in the head on April 30, 1945, his soul plunged into eternity.

Now, tell me: do you think it brings God more glory to simply excuse such heinous and irresponsible actions and allow Hitler into heaven on the basis of restoration and reconciliation or does it bring God more glory to judge Hitler and punish him for the atrocities he committed while he was on this earth? Because remember, he was never tormented in the way that he tormented so many others (not just the Jewish and the Polish but anyone who either opposed him or didn’t fit his ideal Aryan race).

Maybe I’m a cold, heartless bitch, but I want God to make Hitler pay for the things that he never had to pay for on earth. It’s a little disappointing to think that Hitler could toy with the lives of 12 million people and after death still be reconciled to God after maybe a “season” in hell.

God is God, and yes, He could totally restore Adolf Hitler to himself in the era of restoration to come, but I just don’t see humans (who would have exacted the harshest sentences possible on Hitler before executing him) being more lenient than God.

Then Bell says things that make me wonder, Does this jive with scripture?

“To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts.”

Maybe. But again, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it remains that way forever. I think specifically of Pharaoh who had a rather hard heart against the people of Israel who wanted to be freed and even “repented” (!) of his temporarily “melted” heart (after a series of wearying plagues) and decided to go after them as they made their way out of Egypt. The Bible gives no indication that Pharaoh ever repented of his re-hardened heart.

“Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, ‘Sorry, too late’? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: ‘Door’s locked. Sorry. If you have been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it’s too late.’

As it’s written in 2 Timothy 2, God ‘cannot disown himself.'”

These many who have refused need to reread the Parable of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. Not that I like the idea of a door being shut permanently, but if we’re going off of scripture, we have to seriously consider what it says.

“At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.”

And in Christianity, there are some people who choose not to directly align themselves with views they believe so that they may not be tied directly with these specific beliefs therefore they speak of themselves in generalities so that it is almost impossible to pin them down with what they believe.

Love Wins Analysis: Chapter 4: Does God Get What God Wants? (Part II)

[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.

On Being Honest, Open, and Vulnerable

Over the weekend, I was challenged to be choosy about who I share my heart and deepest troubles with. I suppose I am the “wear my heart on my sleeve” sort of person. A bleeding-heart liberal (so to speak) who thinks that by being honest, open, and vulnerable with others, it encourages others to do the same with not just me but also other people. (The idealist in me wants to make the world a better place by sharing feelings and all that silly nonsense.)

I can be rather choosy, but my friend has a point: far too often, I lay myself completely bare which only opens me up to rejection and disappointment. It is one of the reasons I deleted my old Facebook accounts and began a completely different one that is a bit impersonal. There have been times when I’ve been too open on Twitter as well, leaving me to feel as if no one cares if I get no response. This is not the fault of others; only myself.

But I think we need safe havens in which we can feel comfortable. Just like Jesus had his 12 disciples and of those, 3 very good friends (Peter, James, and John), I need to be content with having a few solid friends who know the depth of my troubles and a slightly larger Christian group in which I can ask for prayer.

I don’t believe that it’s wrong to share a deeply personal trouble at a Bible study group during prayer time. Does the potential to make everyone in the room uncomfortable exist? Absolutely. But if someone feels overwhelmed and as if he or she is drowning under the weight of whatever issue persists, a Christian group should be loving and kind enough to address the issue and seek to assist however possible.

Granted, I should be a bit more judicious about the information I share, and going forward, to some extent I will. But people need to connect and know that they are not alone in whatever they’re going through and I think more harm is done by keeping silent and trying to “go it alone” rather than attempting to share in the hope that others will come alongside you.