Francis Chan on Hell and Humility

Francis Chan is working on his newest book, Erasing Hell.  It could be a response to Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, but that may not actually be the case.  Hell, it seems, tends to be a topic of conversation inside and outside the Church lately.  In one of his promotional videos, Chan discusses the importance of having the humility to sit under the magnitude, authority, and truth of Scripture.  And he's right.


As I watch this video, I realize that at times I could certainly stand to have some humility.  But I also realize that as we are lumps of clay telling other lumps of clay about the Potter, we can and should do so boldly, with confidence derived from the Word of God.  Acts 13 shows Barnabas and Paul speaking boldly to the Jews in Antioch in Pisidia (specifically Acts 13:46).  And again, Barnabas and Paul spoke the Word of God "boldly for the Lord" in Iconium (Acts 14:3, ESV).  Peter and John, ordinary men, were seen as bold, having been with Jesus (Acts 4:13ff).

But please don't get me wrong; I feel Chan is representing this kind of boldness in his video.  It takes boldness to say, "Hey, we need to approach this with some humility to submit to a God that's bigger than ourselves." That being said, there are many who feel that saying an idea may be wrong because it does not line up with the biblical teaching is a bad thing.  Some may feel that this is what Chan is saying.  But I don't think that's Chan's point.  These days, some will defend their claim by arguing that the counter-claim maker is not humble.  Some may desire that all ideas dwell equally in a state of coexistence and that's also not Chan's claim.  Chan is rightly claiming that we need to make a careful study of the entire Word of God and then submit ourselves to its teaching.  This is the humility Chan seems to be getting at. This is the humility we should all desire to seek.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Bell opens his chapter, "There are Rocks Everywhere," with some seemingly strange stories of people encountering Jesus in supernatural ways.  Rooms filled with peaceful feelings and white light kind of stuff.  He admits that these sound bizarre, but while he often hears accounts the that seem so unexplainable, he recognizes that many are very real.  In an effort to understand what these strange stories have to do with Jesus, Bells shifts gears and discusses a rock that Moses strikes to get water for his people.  In the provisions of that rock, Paul claims we can see Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4, although Bell only gives the chapter).

In this discussion, an interesting thing has happened in Bells' presentation.  It seems he is shifting away from the radical and shocking approach and slipping into a soft teaching style about Jesus.  It starts on page 144, just past the line that marks the coming of a new section.  There are almost no question marks for four pages!  Bell is starting to make a claim, a proclamation.  He's telling, not asking.  And it is not far from what most Christian preachers and teachers would preach and teach on any given Sunday.  And then on page 150 there's another line, a clear indicator of the end of the section.  What could possibly follow what Bell calls the "Jesus story" (150)?

Within only a two sentences, Bell moves back to what many may see as universalism.  Bell writes, "Within this proper, larger understanding of just what the Jesus story even is, we see that Jesus himself, again and again, demonstrates how seriously he takes his role in saving and rescuing and redeeming not just everything, but everybody" (150-151).  He uses a verse from John 12 that states that all people will be drawn to Jesus and then makes a point to say, "All people, to himself" (151).

But there is, mixed in, some good in this first part of the chapter.  Jesus is for everybody, every culture, every people, as Bell argues.  Clearly Bell wants people to see that they need Jesus.  He has a strong desire for all to find him, now.  But there's also some mixed indications that Rob Bell is not pleased with some of the Church's behavior.  He writes,
"When people use the word 'Jesus,' then, it's important for us to ask who they're talking about.  Are they referring to a token of tribal membership, a tamed, domesticated Jesus who waves the flag and promotes whatever values they have decided their nation needs to return to?  Are they referring to the supposed source of the imperial impulse of their group, which wants to conquer other groups 'in the name of Jesus'? Are they referring to the logo or slogan of their political, economic, or military system through which they sanctify their greed and lust for power?" (156).  
He challenges the 'them' Christians about which he passive-aggressively writes.  And the challenge is not off based, it's just that there are strong hints that Bell is angry at any within Christianity that don't look like him and his flavor.  In this chapter (and others) we can see that Bell loves the lost and wants to see people turn to Jesus, but for those tribes, cultures, families, and individuals that have turned to Christ but still maintain was might be considered an immature understanding of the gospel, Bell offers very little love or compassion.  Instead, throughout the book, these people seem to be on his hit list. He appears unwilling to extent any grace to this group of Christians.  So he draws a contrast, showing this reader how he defines what a church that follows Jesus looks like.  He continues,
"Jesus is both near and intimate and personal, and big and wide and transcendent.  One of the many things people in a church do, then, is name, honor, and orient themselves round this mystery.  A church is a community of people who enact specific rituals and create specific experiences to keep this word alive in their own hearts, a gathering of believers who help provide language and symbols and experiences for this mystery" (156).
With the argument he is presenting, Bell discusses these rituals and continually states that nobody is excluded from the need of Jesus.  The extent of that need however, is unclear considering his chapter on hell (Chapter 3).  Does everybody need Jesus to avoid a longer time in a purgatory-style hell, or is there some other reason?  The question about why everybody needs Jesus goes unanswered in favor of the idea that Jesus is for everybody and he will eventually get them all. 

And then, on page 158, there's another section dividing line.  Following the line, 158 pages into the book, is a question that most the readers are likely asking.  After a 157 pages, Bell has asked how the premise that's printed on the cover of his book relates to Jesus.  He asks, "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?" (158).  But before I continue, I have to wonder what Bell means by "this explanation"? Is he referring to the previous page, section, chapter, or even the previous 157 pages?  And about "what he is doing"? Does this refer to saving everybody or something else?

With the exception of Bell's hint that worship in names other than Jesus could still be worshiping Jesus, Bell provides a pretty explanation of Jesus.  Unfortunately, he doesn't answer the question.  He says nothing about how 'who Jesus is' and 'what he is doing' relates to heaven or hell.  He only focuses on the idea that Jesus is for everybody.   And that's where the chapter ends.

I had very little notes written in the margins and between the sentences. This chapter is one that a Christian can read and say, "Ah, that's nice," without really seeing any glaring differences about what they know and love about Jesus.  Bell seems to be cooling off after the previous few chapters. However, for those who only spend 2 hours a week in Church and nothing more (that's only 4 and a half days communing with God), and maybe for those that spend no time in church, no time reading the Bible, and no time praying but claim to be 'spiritual,' one might feel differently.  And maybe it is this person that Bell had in mind while writing Chapter 6.   
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 7)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Don't Neglect Salvation? Hebrews 2 & 3

Hebrews 2:2-3 provides a warning against neglecting such a great salvation, that is, neglecting the great message the author and his readers have heard, which is being introduced in the previous chapter of Hebrews. This is the message of the gospel and the author of Hebrews says, “don’t overlook it.” The word the ESV translates as ‘neglecting’ comes from the Greek word amelesantes (a transliteration), which is derived from ameleo (also a transliteration). Strong’s states that its meaning is to neglect, make light of, ignore, and even be negligent of (Strongs 2001, 1590). The word appears four times in the New Testament—in Matthew 22:5, 1 Timothy 4:14, Hebrews 2:3, and again in Hebrews 8:9.

In 1 Timothy 4:14, the warning is to avoid neglecting the gift that was given to the reader. In Hebrews 8:9 the neglect or ignorance was God’s approach to the people of the exodus who did not continue in his covenant. Matthew 22:5 however, seems to shed some light on the Hebrews 2:3 passage where there is a picture of a neglectful attitude toward salvation. In this passage, Jesus shares a parable of a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. Everything was ready, but when the servants went out with the invitation, the people paid them no attention—the messengers were rejected, turned away, treated poorly, and in some cases even killed. The king was angered by this reaction so he sent his troops to kill those who murdered his messengers and then he had their cities burned. Eventually, the king sent his messengers into the streets to invite anybody the messengers could find.

The author of Hebrews is cautioning his readers not to neglect this message for he knows the consequences are grave. But he is not acting as if he has received this invitation and that is the end of it. He includes himself in the warning saying, “We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1, ESV). It seems that paying much closer attention is to understand the details. And it also seems that we need to follow this warning to the extent that the author takes it, later writing, “Take care, brothers, lest there be any of you of an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called ‘today,’ that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin” (Hebrews 3:12-3, ESV). Paying much closer attention would appear to be an ongoing thing; and being an ongoing thing, it seems that neglecting the message of salvation and the blessing that come from it is a very serious matter.

This warning in Hebrews 3:12, is a warning to be cautious and even avoid having an unbelieving heart. This unbelieving heart the author warns about, it seems, is evil and can cause one to fall away from, or even rebel against the Living God. In verse 13, the reader is encouraged to exhort one another daily to avoid the hardening of the heart caused by sin. Genesis 8:21 says, “ the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (ESV) and Deuteronomy 11:6 warns “Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them” (ESV). Therefore, it seems that the default or natural desire of the human heart is toward this hardened state, and this hardness causes our faith in, and love for God to be less than our 'all' as Deuteronomy 6, 10, 13, and 30 instruct (which Jesus teaches as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.)

Hebrews 3:13 shows that the way to avoid this frightful hardening is to engage in daily exhortation with, and among other Christian believers of the living God. (In light of Hebrews 1 and 2, this faith should be in Jesus, to be more specific.) It is a daily effort in study, prayer, discussion, openness, honesty, and accountability with the other believers that fights the natural desire of the ever-hardening, sinful heart. This will hopefully help the reader follow the instruction of Hebrews 3:14 to “hold our original confidence firm to the end” (ESV).

In addition, this message was written to believers so while it could be a discussion about completely forfeiting salvation after one is regenerated (or born again), it is a strong possibly that is is about missing out on the many good things God has for his people.

While verses 12 and 13 are counted in Chapter 3, they seem to fit better heading into Chapter 4 because the call to take courage and keep the heart soft and faithful is compared to God’s people who stepped in faith to leave Egypt but eventually sinned by turning from God. They eventually took their faith and placed it elsewhere, in other words, they allowed their hearts to return to the default hardness and unbelief of all God was doing for them. While they still counted themselves as God's people, they did not trust that he had their best interests in mind. The result of this sin was a prohibition of the blessings and rest found in the Promised Land. The author continues to compare rest (or lack thereof) to the condition of the heart, and those with no rest had hard hearts. The author is encouraging the readers (then and now) to take caution and avoid the same pitfalls of those who did not remain completely faithful to the end.

___
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Word Study: Parakletos

I've always been a champion of reading and studying from multiple translations of the Bible.  But as I'm learning Koine Greek and studying the New Testament in the original language, I've come to believe this even more.  Because words in one language tend not to translate perfectly into another, looking at how multiple translation teams handled specific words helps us see the complexity of the word.  (And if you don't know the original languages, there are a number of resources--in print, on-line, and computer software) to make this much easier.

Recent research and study on John's understanding of the Holy Spirit led me to a word study of Parakletos.  I ran across its use a few times and felt it was worth deeper study.  (I've excluded  the technical study of the word's construction.)  


Parakletos appears only five times in the New Testament—four times in the Gospel of John and once in First John (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). Incidentally, it makes no appearance in the LXX, the first translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) into Koine Greek. Köstenberger states, “The translation of this term has proved particularly difficult, since there does not seem to be an exact equivalent in the English language” (1999, 157). Most English Bible translations seem to handle the word differently. For example, the English Standard Version (ESV) uses the word “Helper” in all of the Gospel accounts and uses and “Advocate” in John’s epistle. The American Standard Version (ASV) uses “Comforter” in the Gospel uses, and “ Advocate” in the letter. The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) uses “Counselor” in the Gospel, and once again, “Advocate” is used in First John; and the same is true for the King James Version (KJV). The New International Version (NIV) also selected “Counselor” in the Gospel and simply says “one” in the Epistle. “Helper” is the choice for the New American Standard Bible (NASB) except in the Letter, where “ Advocate” is the selected word. The New English Translation (NET) uses “Advocate” for every occurrence, as does the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New Living Translation (NLT). But which English translation should be considered best?

Turning to dictionaries and lexicons a variety of meanings are presented. Perschbacher defines parakletos as, “one called or sent for to assist another; an advocate, one who pleads the cause of another, [. . .] one present to render various beneficial service, and thus, the Paraclete, whose influence and operation were to compensate for the departure of Christ himself” (1990, 308.) Strong defines the word as, “counselor, intercessor, helper, one who encourages and comforts; in the NT it refers exclusively to the Holy Spirit and to Jesus Christ” (2001, 3884).

Köstenberger feels that the best translation is “helping Presence” because it “captures the importance of the term better than any others” (1999, 157). His reasons are three fold: because this translation best mirrors Jesus’ earthly ministry, it best outlines the Spirit’s functions as outlined in John 14-16, and it seems to avoid the legal concepts other words get marred down in. (1999, 157). The challenge in simply accepting Köstenberger’s translation however is that it brings in theology with the translation—something that might stretch beyond the necessary theological under-girding that is inherent with most biblical translations.

When read in context, the use of “Advocate” in 1 John 2:1 seem to make good sense. But it may not be the correct idea in the Gospel of John. But for what reason should the same work be translated differently in two different works? Likely because it has no perfect match in the English. That being said, I wonder if two English words might do a better job at capturing the meaning? Maybe Helping Comforter or Comforting Helper? Helping Counselor?

Regardless of the best translation, I can say this with certainty: if I bring my theological ideas into the translation, I am not as comfortable with Köstenberger’s “helping presence.” If we are to believe that the Holy Spirit is a person (as Jesus is), and is engaged in a function (also as Jesus is), then only using the idea of “Presence” seems to introduce ideas that may be worse than only using the the idea of an Advocate.  Indeed, the Holy Spirit has come to be present with us; but "Presence" opens the door for ideas such as a force or energy, which is an incorrect way to view the Holy Spirit. 

___
Köstenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.
Perschbacher, Wesley J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1990.
Strong, James, John R. Kohlenberger, James A. Swanson, and James Strong. The Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001.

Eternity is a Long Time

There is an idea cropping up among some Christians that I think is worth some discussion.  It's a thought that the biblical concept of eternity is not actually an idea of forever, or a time without end.  Just recently in fact, I read a statement by a controversial author that actually argued that eternity is not a concept found in the Bible.  And these arguments are almost always centered on the doctrine of hell.

Now, to be fair, this is not the same argument as annihilationism.  Annihilationism is the idea that God is merciful and allows a person in hell to eventually be snuffed out rather than suffering forever, enduring eternal flames and being eaten by the worm that never dies (Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:48 for example).  The person is just no more, completely consumed by fire and the worm, and is eventually without suffering.  Dr. Clark Pinnock was a champion of this view.

But this recent argument is not annihilationism.  No, this other argument addresses the idea that eternity is not really forever, but maybe just for a long time, implying that there is something after the punishment.  And both annihilationism and this other argument are based in the stand that God is not worth worshiping if he is willing to punish his enemies without end.

But before this 'eternity is not forever' conversation runs wild, there are at least a couple problems we should examine. 

First, if eternity does not apply to hell because eternity is not a biblical concept, than neither can it apply to heaven.  It's just that simple.

Second, eternity is a biblical concept.  Those who argue against it might discuss the New Testament Greek word aion without having considered another New Testament Greek word, aionios. 

Let's start with aion.  According to Strong, aion means, "properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): — age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end).  And Thayer says it can be both an age and "an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity," among other things.  Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that gets completely neglected when people want to downgrade eternity, especially an eternity in hell.  The word is aionios. Aionios has that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Regarding this word, Strong says it means, "perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): — eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began)."  But you don't have to know Greek to see this.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6Aion and aionios are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).

It is easy to understand why someone would want to think of hell as something temporary, but this is not what the Bible claims.  And what value is a god that we create with doctrines we control?  Certainly it is the God of the Bible that saves, not one of our own making. And God has reveled in his own Word to us that both heaven AND hell have an aspect of eternity, forever, time marching on without end, regardless of how we would otherwise want to think of it.

When I Teach Heresy

I co-teach an adult class on Sunday mornings that is presently dealing with the Synoptic Gospels from an exegetical perspective.  I'd like to think it's a good class, and both myself and the other teacher work hard to challenge the students while also rightly teaching the Word of God.  But I would be grossly fooling myself if I believed that I always get it right.

On this particular Sunday, I was given Matthew 10:17-42 and the subsequent parallel passages found in the Synoptics.  This text is larger than the selections we typically teach in the 30 to 40 minutes we have for class, depending on how fast the students trickle in.   Throughout the week, I had been reading and re-reading the passage, as well as looking at it in the Greek.  My Greek skills are certainly not fantastic, so this large text was a lot of work.  And I had prayed for illumination and understanding. 

On Saturday morning, sitting before my computer, books and Bibles open on the desk, I started feeling the magnitude of teaching God's Word.  Visions of standing before God to give an account of my teaching often weigh heavily upon me as I prepare to teach.  I think about verses like Hebrews 13:17 and James 3:1.  It was even worse on this day because there was just so much material; therefore, I opted to deal with the passage in themes.  

Approaching the text thematically, rather than working through it line by line would help me with the limited time but it would also mean that some of the verses that did not greatly impact the themes would get far less attention.  Even still, I carefully read through each verse and paragraph seeking to understand. Again, I prayed for guidance and understanding.  Occasionally I would deal with a word study as specific questions came up.  And then I examined some commentaries to see if I was on track or if maybe I had missed the mark.  (I go here last, but this often means I return to my study for more and then another return to the commentaries.)  I tried to prepare for potential questions that might be asked, especially considering there are a variety of study Bibles used by the students ranging from the NIV Study Bible to the ESV Study Bible to the Ryrie Study Bible, and these always seem to bring up a wide range of questions and comments.  But as it turns out, I did not prepare well for the questions that came at me about Matthew 10:28.

When I looked at verse 28 during my preparation, I noticed that Jesus was saying to fear 'him' (or 'the one'; ton, transliterated from the Greek) who is able to destroy the body and soul in gehenna.  I made a note that in this specific passage the ton does not seem to be clearly identified.  There seems to be some ambiguity.  I questioned if this was God who the Twelve (Jesus' specific audience at the time) should fear because he has the ability to kill and then destroy the soul, or if it was the devil.  Then I wondered how either of these ideas worked in light of the next few sentences about God placing such a high value on his children, even knowing the number of hairs on their head (Matthew 10:29-31).  I was thinking about 1 Peter 5:8 which reads, "Be sober-minded; be watchful.  Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (ESV).  Looking at just verse 28, it seemed that the ambiguity might be pointing to the adversary.

But having already spent a few hours on this lesson and still having much to do, I decided to move on.  I wish I hadn't because a systematic study as well as additional work with the specific passage may have yielded different ideas.  Then, to make matters more complicated, I misread the commentary I was looking at when taking my ideas to the scholars.  Yes, Carson's discussion has something about Satan, but in rereading it, I now see that while Satan is powerful, only God can ultimately destroy souls (understood from a systematic approach and clearly outlined by Carson).  It is clear now that I was skimming through the commentary on the passages that were not the primary focus of the class. For the texts I wanted to deal with in class, I was consulting multiple commentaries.  And I was using four different translations.  For those verses, I was putting in the work; for the others, it is apparent I didn't give them proper attention.

One of the students using the NIV quickly pointed out that this translation reads, "the One," with the One (ton) being capitalized.  The NIV--notorious for removing any ambiguity and filling in the gaps--might have actually better prepared me had I noticed the capitalized One as I was looking at the passage in a parallel format with other translations.  But I missed it, likely pressing on toward other verses.  And during class, I couldn't remember the extent of the ambiguity.  Then I heard, "My study Bible says. . . ."  Sadly, I grew defensive.  Over eight hours of study and work for the 30-minute lesson suddenly went down the drain as the class shutdown. 

The lesson I take away from this experience (and hope others may learn from my mistake) is this:  All teachers are heretics on some level.  We are never going to get it right every time.  I once had a professor that would end most of his classes by saying, "Well, that's probably enough heresy for today."  But this is not an excuse to try less.  We should not hide behind the reality that we will fumble the ball.  If anything, it should push us teachers of God's Word to work even harder and pray all the more.  We are obligated to teach God's word well.  It is my prayer that God will fill me even more so my teaching will actually not be from me, but instead from his outpouring to his class.

And that's probably enough heresy for one blog post.


*Painting, "Jun Hus at the Stake" is in the public domain.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

If you've ever seen old video footage from a bomber squadron just after the the payload has dropped and the bombardier doors are closing, you get a gimps of a unique feeling in the brief moment before the bombs explode.  The planes are now turning back and the bombs are out of their control.  The crew is probably hoping the bombs find their target; but in reality, they are more likely hoping to get safely home and put another bombing run behind them.  Still, in that moment, the bombs haven't yet unleashed their intended destruction.  Chapter 5 of Rob Bell's book Love Wins feels like that moment.

Bell has made his theological bombing run for over half the book now.  The target--his understanding of Christianity and the Church's understanding of heaven and hell.  The Church is looking skyward as Bell's bombs are coming right for them.  The payload doors are closing now.  Bell is arcing his plane around and heading back to the safety of home.  Another bombing run is almost complete.  This is Chapter 5.  I can imagine that if Bell and I were discussing this over a cup of coffee, he might argue that he wasn't dropping bombs, only asking questions.  However, the way his questions come across, he's really only painting flowers and "Love Wins" on the nosecones of his deadly payload.  The truth however, is that there is no amount of paint that can change the purpose of his explosives.

Chapter 5, titled "Dying to Live," is fairly flat after the previous three chapters.  It seems as if Bell is letting his readers take a few minutes to rest.  He knows he has been unloading his theology and now needs to turn a corner and head for safety.

The focus of this chapter is the gospel of Jesus and the reconciliation God with his creation.  He asks, "When Jesus died on the cross, was it the end of the sacrificial system or was it the reconciling of all things?" (126).  While this is not an either or proposition, Bell takes his argument in the direction of reconciliation (which is fine).  He points out that reconciliation required Jesus' death AND the resurrection.  And this is the model Bell uses to demonstrate that new life comes through death.  God is "rescuing all of creation" (134).  Very few Christians would read this chapter and feel like bombs were falling.  In fact, it's a fairly safe chapter.  It's not likely one to be discussed in reviews or on the promotion circuit.  There are far fewer questions (although still enough to keep the question mark well employed).

Bell seems to shift away from his early arguments and starts to come back to sharing the gospel as most preachers would.  For example, he writes,
Jesus talks about death and rebirth constantly, his and ours.  He calls us to let go, turn away, renounce, confess, repent, and leave behind the old ways.  He talks of the life that will come from his own death, and he promises that life will flow to use in thousands of small ways as we die to our egos, our pride, our need to be right, our self-sufficiency, our rebellion, and our stubborn insistence that we deserve to get our way.  When we cling with white knuckles to our sins and our hostility, we're like a tree that won't let it's leaves go.  There can't be a spring if we're still stuck in the fall" (136). 
What Christian would disagree with this statement?  This is the gospel.  Chapter 5 is fairly easy to read and enjoyable.  But wait a minute. . . .  Between this chapter and the last there are falling bombs.  Unanswered questions are still suspended in the air.  Is this chapter Bell's way of moving away from those questions?  Is this his way of saying he's not going to answer any of the questions he has presented?  Is he now headed home, not looking to see which bombs hit the mark?

I'm looking for some answers.  Can we let go of our metaphorical leaves at some point after we've been found fruitless, hacked down, and cast into the fire? (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9, 13:6-9; John 15:2-6.)  Can spring come somewhere in the eternal punishment of hell?   If at some post-life point, we decide to turn to God, from hell, can we go to the great new city and be with our creator as his child?  At some point will God force those clinging dead leaves to drop them so they can finally see spring?  Will everybody eventually let go of leaves, all people, because that's what God wants?  These are only a few unanswered question bombs from previous chapters.  Are we moving on?  Is this presentation of the gospel, although very important, actually being employed to move away from the explosives?  Is Bell using the gospel as a smoke screen? (See, a question can be a bomb.)

Not long ago I attended a clinical presentation about family dynamics.  A question and answer time was reserved for the end.  The first question was a practical, real, applicable question about a specific aspect of dealing with extreme verbal child abuse.  The speaker, an expert in the field, seemed to squirm and then froze as the question was being presented. He looked stumped and slightly afraid, but after an a moment it was obvious that his mind was going into overdrive as he was formulating an answer. After an awkward amount of time he spoke.  We were all on the edge of our seats waiting to hear what this expert would say.  His answer:  "What to you think?"

The crowd quickly turned on the expert. One man raised his hand and asked, "So, is this really just a question and question time?"  We were there to find some answers, from an expert, not just witness him asking more questions.  And if this man's position was to say that we can't know or that there are no answers (like Bell's defense), why offer the presentation in the first place? Why waste everybody's time? Or was it a ploy for the ability to stand as a star in front of a crowd or maybe make a few bucks?  (See, more bombs hidden as questions.) 

On Ash Wednesday I watched a man ask a question of a conflicted Catholic Priest (who is employed as a Catholic Chaplain/Priest but lives counter to his employment and doesn't seem to want to offer Catholic rites to Catholics).  The inquiring man, clearly not a Catholic, asked, "What does the ash on the forehead represent; what's it for?"  A fair question.  The priest looked confused or unwilling to answer.  The man, really wanting to learn something about Catholicism and Ash Wednesday dug some more:  "What does it mean?"  Then the priest answered, "What does it mean to you?" 

There may have been a recent time in Christianity when it was vogue or hip to ask questions without actually seeking answers; but it's time for answers.  People are looking for answers; and if they're not, they are just asking endless questions in an attempt to be cool. Even worse, they keep asking questions because they are unwilling to accept the Truth.

When I think about about both of these examples, I can't help but think that Bell is doing the same thing.  The dust jacket of Love Wins presents Bell as an expert.  Publishing a book about a specific topic generally shouts, "I'm an expert on this topic. I know something and want to tell you about it. I have some answers."  But I keep finding myself wondering if Bell is going to provide any tangible information or continue to hide behind the question mark, followed by an easy, agreeable chapter?  Is he going to get back to the payload this book came to deliver or is he flying away without looking back?
   

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 6)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
**Photo of dead leaves taken by Flickr.com user Antaean (Ricky) and is registered under a Creative Commons License.

The Gospel!

As I'm writing this, it's Good Friday.  Tonight and on Sunday morning, churches all over the world will come together to remember the ultimate victory of Jesus.  Pastors will share the gospel story and invite the lost, the broken, the hurting, and even the rebels, to join with God as a citizen of his Kingdom.  And that is good.

But is this where it ends?  Dare I say, no; this is where it begins!

The good news of the gospel is so, so much more than forgiveness.  It's so much more than membership and grace.  It's a victorious, ultimate, unbelievable transformation.

Whether you are a member of the Kingdom or not, I highly encourage you to watch this video.  Be compelled to something more, something amazing. 


May God bless you today, and may you join with him in what he has in store for you. May you be transformed!

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."]

At this point, I have two confessions.  First, I put the book down after Chapter Three for a while.  I was feeling frustrated that I set out on this journey through Bell's book.  Second, I have now completed the book, having read the remaining chapters during a flight across the country.  This is not to say that the review from this point forward will not capture my thoughts and impressions as I was reading each chapter.  I've been taking notes and recording my thoughts in the margins and in the bizarre spaces between each paragraph that make the book seem as if were intended to be one long blog post rather than a bound book.  I guess now I'm thankful for the abnormal formatting.

The title of Chapter Four asks, "Does God Get What God Wants?"

But first, Bell opens the chapter with jabs at doctrinal statements found on other church websites.  It is clear that he is in disagreement with their approach of sharing their beliefs on what he feels should be a welcoming, seeker-friendly website.  (Interestingly, while Bell defends his own ideas saying, "[Christian faith] is a deep, wide, diverse, stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences" (x-xi), he seems for forget to leave room for these other churches.  Is the stream only so wide and so diverse that other churches are only accepted if their ideas are flowing the way Rob Bell wants? It does seem so.

Chapter Four is about universalism, and thus far, if any chapter has demonstrated that Bell has beliefs in the universalism camp, it's this one.  (I realize that outside of the book, Bell has been declaring that he is not a universalist, but there are aspects of this chapter that would argue otherwise.)   Here, Bell discusses universalism--that is, his views of universalism, specifically two views.  The first is that heaven is "a universal hugfest where everybody eventually ends up around the heavenly campfire singing 'Kumbaya,' with Jesus playing guitar" (105).  Through jabbing questions, he implies that this is incorrect and nobody would want this anyway.  The second view is that a person has rejected God so much so that he or she is no longer human; thus all humans go to heaven but all non-humans do not. But this implies that there are people that are not human and that kind of implies an us verses them. Then he argues that these are long standing and traditional views starting with the early Christian church (107).  But while Bell argues against these views (or I should say, he asks loaded questions of them), he conveniently never takes a position for himself.  He doesn't ever seem to suggest a correct answer; he only questions the ideas for which which he doesn't care for or agree.  And in the way he questions, he seems to takes a stand against these views, much like his approach to the other Christian's websites.   

Back to the question of the chapter title:  "Does God Get What God Wants?"  The bulk of this chapter--and I might argue much of the books thus far--hinges on a verse in First Timothy 2.  Bell quotes it as, "God wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth" (97).  The passage itself comes from First Timothy 2:3-4 and this translation looks very similar to the NIV version.  The ESV translates the verses as, "This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4, ESV).  Bell's argument goes like this: If God wants something and doesn't get it, he's not powerful and therefore not a good God.  However, Bell argues, God does indeed get everything he wants and therefore everybody WILL be saved and have a knowledge of the truth. . . eventually.  And if Bell's way of thinking about this is not correct, according to his own argument, then God must be a failure.

To support his understanding of this specific Scripture, Bell looks at some other verses (citing only the chapters from where they come).  First he looks at Isaiah 45, Malachi 2, Acts 17, and Romans 11, to argue "What we have in common--regardless of our tribe, language, customs, beliefs, or religion--outweighs our differences.  This is why God wants 'all people to be saved'" (99).   Then using other Scripture, Bell works to show his readers that the Bible says everybody will be saved.  Many of the Scriptures are interpreted with questionable methods.  Here's the list of Scriptures Bell uses to support his unrealistic view that everybody will be saved.  I highly recommend you turn to each of these chapters and read them yourself, in their entirety. 

Psalm 65 -- "all people will come" to God (99)
Ezekiel 36 -- "The nations will know that I am the Lord" (99)
Isaiah 52 -- "All the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God" (99)
Zephaniah 3 -- "Then I will purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder"
Philippians 2 -- "Every knee should bow . . . and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (99)
Psalm 22 -- "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him." (100)
Psalm 22 -- "All the rich of the earth will beast and worship; all who do down to the dust will kneel before him--" (100)

Shifting to the idea that God does not fail, Rob uses Psalm 22 to say, "So everybody who dies will kneel before God, and 'future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness, declaring to a people yet unborn: He has done it!'" (100).  Following this passage, Bell again says that God does not fail and it is this idea that the prophets were affirming.  They turned to this theme again and again (100).  To support this claim, Bell turns to more chapters. Again, I suggest these chapters be read in their entirety.

Job 23 -- "Who can oppose God?  He does whatever he pleases" (100)
Job 42 -- "I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (100)
Isaiah 46 and 25 -- "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save nor his ear too dull to hear?" (101)
Jeremiah 32 -- "Nothing is too hard for you" (101)

Then Bell shifts to God's purpose and love by looking at these chapters.

Psalm 145 -- "is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made" (101)
Psalm 30 -- "lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime" (101)
Psalm 145 -- "is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love" (101)
Philippians 2 -- "it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose" (101)
Luke 15 -- God never ever gives up until everything is found (101-102)

After sharing his understanding of these passages, Bell rhetorically asks,
"Will 'all the ends of the earth' come, as God has decided, or will only some? Will all feast as it's promised in Psalm 22, or only a few?  Will everybody be given a new heart, or only a limited number of people? Will God, in the end, settle, saying: 'Well, I tried, I gave it my best shot, and sometimes you just have to be okay with failure'?  Will God shrug God-sized shoulders and say, 'You can't always get what you want?'" (103).
These questions seem to lead to a specific answer, and that answer looks a lot like universalism.  But before we come to a definitive answer for any of these questions, it might be helpful to look at some other Scriptures. While there is intense debate on both sides of this argument (as well as the one regarding how much free will man may have) it may be valuable to at at least look at these chapters and verses and ask how they compare to the presentation Bell has provided.  I realize that different interpretations will lead to different answers (a strong reason for good exegesis and hermeneutical  practices).  If all are saved in the end, why are these Scriptures in the Bible?  Look at Daniel 12:2; Matthew 18:8, 25:42-46; John 5:29; Romans 14:12; Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Jude 7; and Revelation 14:11.  Also, I realize that a universalist may argue that even though everybody ends up in heaven in the end, the reason for accepting Jesus now is to receive the blessing that he provides now.  But still, is that the only reason then for Matthew 28:18-20?

Another thing one should do before forming conclusions from this chapter is look at the passage that drives it-- First Timothy 2:3-4.  The critical aspect of this argument depends on the words "wants" or "desires" (from the NIV or ESV translation.) and 'all people.'  'Want' or 'desire' is translated from the Greek word thelō, which means, to choose or prefer, wish, will, desire, intend, to have, to be inclined to, to be disposed to, to purpose, to resolve to, to love, and Thayer even says it could be "to seize with the mind" or to "have in mind." Obviously in the English language, when we have a word with such a wide range of meaning, context is very important.  This is true in the Greek too.  (To get a good idea of this word, here are all the places thelō, or its negation appear in the New Testament: Matt 1:19; 2:18; 5:40, 42; 7:12; 8:2–3; 9:13; 11:14; 12:7, 38; 13:28; 14:5; 15:28, 32; 16:24–25; 17:4, 12; 18:23, 30; 19:17, 21; 20:14–15, 21, 26–27, 32; 21:29; 22:3; 23:4, 37; 26:15, 17, 39; 27:15, 17, 21, 34, 43; Mark 1:40–41; 3:13; 6:19, 22, 25–26, 48; 7:24; 8:34–35; 9:13, 30, 35; 10:35–36, 43–44, 51; 12:38; 14:7, 12, 36; 15:9, 12; Luke 1:62; 4:6; 5:12–13, 39; 6:31; 8:20; 9:23–24, 54; 10:24, 29; 12:49; 13:31, 34; 14:28; 15:28; 16:26; 18:4, 13, 41; 19:14, 27; 20:46; 22:9; 23:8, 20; John 1:43; 3:8; 5:6, 21, 35; 6:11, 21, 67; 7:1, 17, 44; 8:44; 9:27; 12:21; 15:7; 16:19; 17:24; 21:18, 22–23; Acts 2:12; 7:28, 39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 17:18; 18:21; 19:33; 24:27; 25:9; 26:5; Rom 1:13; 7:15–16, 18–21; 9:16, 18, 22; 11:25; 13:3; 16:19; 1 Cor 4:19, 21; 7:7, 32, 36, 39; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:3; 12:1, 18; 14:5, 19, 35; 15:38; 16:7; 2 Cor 1:8; 5:4; 8:10–11; 11:12; 12:6, 20; Gal 1:7; 4:9, 17, 20–21; 5:17; 6:12–13; Phil 2:13; Col 1:27; 2:1, 18; 1 Th 2:18; 4:13; 2 Th 3:10; 1 Tim 1:7; 2:4; 5:11; 2 Tim 3:12; Philem 1:14; Heb 10:5, 8; 12:17; 13:18; James 2:20; 4:15; 1 Pet 3:10, 17; 2 Pet 3:5; 3 John 1:13; Rev 2:21; 11:5–6; 22:17.)

What does Paul mean in his letter to Timothy when he says God 'desires' or 'wants'? And what is meant by 'all people'? It seems this passage may have been written in the same light as John 3:16 and 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.  How should we understand God's desires in light of John 6:40 which reads, "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (ESV)?  As the Timothy passage is examined, one must ask if 'wants' is the same as 'wills' or 'decrees.'  Can God have a desire for his people that does not come to pass?  Did God have a desire for Adam and Eve to avoid the forbidden fruit?  I believe the answer is yes.  And when man does not do what God wants or desires, who has failed, man or God?  Does God desire that little Rwandan kids get their limbs cut off by their parents' enemies?  Does God desire that women be raped?  The answer is no!  But according to Bell's argument, if God doesn't get what he desires, God has failed.  The Bible teaches that man has failed and has acted against God's desires.  The definition for this is sin.

Also, 'all people' might be in reference to every person throughout all of time, or it could be in reference to all kinds of people, every tribe, tongue, age, sex, and nation.  Either way, it is reasonable that God would like to see everybody turn back to him and profess their submission and love for their Creator even though the sin nature, depravity, or even free will could keep some from doing so.  In light of what the meta-narrative of the Bible teaches, it seems that  salvation is universal in its availability, but this availability does not necessarily suggest that it is automatic or guaranteed that all will be saved. 

Towards the end of the chapter, Bell sets up his safety net, first asking,
 "[W]e read in these last chapters of Revelation that the gates of that city in the new world will 'never shut.' That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on the details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process.  But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out.  If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go. 

Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions--and the people who do them--from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people?  Keeping the gates, in essence, open?  Will everyone eventually be reconciled to God or will there be those who cling to their version of their story, insisting on their right to be their own little god ruling their own little miserable kingdom?" (115).
Immediately following this he asks, "Will everybody be saved or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices?" (115).  Then in a rare moment that exists hardly anywhere else in the Love Wins, Rob Bell tires to answer his own questions.  He writes, "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact.  We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom love requires" (115).  Um, Mr. Bell, didn't you just argue that God does in fact get what God wants?  And according to the way you understand First Timothy 2:3-4, doesn't God want everybody to be saved?  So based on the argument you've constructed, won't everybody be saved in the end, eventually?  Everybody will be in the new creation as God wills; isn't that what you argued?  Doesn't it seem more like your universalist answer is, 'Yes, everybody will be saved, nobody will perish apart from God forever because of their choices'?  The answer Bell provides for his own question seems to run counter to the entire chapter.    

Personally, for a book "About heaven and hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" I find Bell's attempt to provide answers a bit lacking.  This answer says nothing about the fate of anybody and therefore suggests that Bell has failed to deal with the basic premise that his books claims to address. According to Bell, the fate of every person who ever lived is, 'I don't know. We can't know. Don't worry about it, but leave room for love,'

Can I have my money back?

Up next, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 5)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.

Sproul and Carson Discuss Exegesis

RC Sproul discusses the practice of good exegesis with Don Carson, possibly the leading living New Testament scholar in the world.

"What is exegesis?" you ask.  They get into that in this video, among other things, and it's certainly worth the time to watch.  They also cover some good practices and some bad methods for biblical interpretation.

RC Sproul and D.A. Carson on the topic of proper exegesis.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)


[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell explores his thoughts about hell in the third chapter of his book, Love Wins.  With a part of this chapter he challenges the traditional Christian view of a place of punishment, sorrow, and anguish, and it also seems that he is laying the ground work for a future argument about the everlasting aspects of the biblical hell.  But Bell also uses this chapter to present an idea of hell on earth, maybe something like his ideas of heaven on earth. However, this twisted idea of hell that Bell shares speaks against the Gospel of Christ and against the biblical idea of hell; it is a heretical argument and a tragic concept with the potential for epic devastation, a message which no Christian preacher should ever suggest, preach, or teach.

Bell argues that hell on earth is for victims. 

How can this be good news?

(At this point, I realize that readers who love and support Bell and his book will be tempted to stop reading this review, and that's okay.  But it is my hope that those readers remember arguments that they themselves might have made.  "Don't pass judgment," they might have argued, "and don't form an opinion until you've read the book."  Some also argued that I would have to get to the end of the book to see the entire picture.  So if this is you, I hope you continue reading this review.  I hope you are willing to see it through to the end. I invite comments and questions via e-mail or in person.  Please feel free to contact me. And I realize I have just leveled some serious claims about Bell's ideas; so Mr. Bell, I invite you to contact me to discuss your ideas so I can better understand. Come out to Salt Lake so we can discuss this over a cup of coffee.)

In this chapter, Bell shares some of his observations and experiences he has had as a pastor--a trip to Rwanda, a time sitting with a rape victim, a question from a boy about his father who had just committed suicide, the look of a cocaine addict, the ripples of a marital affair, and a cruel dead man.

When Bell was in Rwanda, he witnessed many teenagers missing hands and legs.  They were victims of brutal treatment, forced upon them by no fault of their own. Bell says this was a tactic of a person's enemy.  Cutting off your enemy's hand or leg leaves a brutal reminder of what you did to him.  He is reminded of you every time he looks at his child.  To this, Bells says, "Do I believe in a literal hell?  Of course. Those aren't metaphorical missing arms and legs" (71).

Bell also asks if his readers have ever sat with a woman as she described what it was like when she was raped.  In another question he asks, "How does a person describe what it's like to hear a five-year-old boy whose father has just committed suicide ask, 'When is daddy coming home?'" (71).   

But here's the problem with these examples.  In the common vernacular, one might suggest that a hot stone massage is "heavenly" or maybe it's a piece of chocolate cake the warrants such a high description.  I even remember once buying a honey-baked ham from a company called Heavenly Ham, but I really don't think I bought a ham from heaven, not even heaven on earth.  This is metaphorical hyperbole.  Heaven is the greatest thing one can think of so we use it to describe great things, as if to say there is nothing better.  But in reality, the biblical heaven is not a hot stone massage or a piece of cake or a ham or even the commercial building where I bought the ham.  That's not what these kinds of statements are attempting to say.  We use the word and idea of hell in much the same way.  Hell is the worst thing we can think of so we make statements like, "War is hell."  We want to dramatically declare that it just doesn't get any worse than this.  So in that usage, armless, legless boys and rape victims and mothers who hear very difficult questions could easily say, "This is hell;" but that would not be the hell described in the bible.

What these horrific examples demonstrate is sin, or rather, the effects of sin.  See, the teens in Rwanda and the raped woman are the victims of sinful acts thrust upon them.  These are examples of sin in motion, the sin of humans; it's sin in the fallen world in which we live.  However, in the model Bell gives us, Abel would have been in hell during the few moments while Cain was murdering him (Genesis 4).  Stephen would have been in hell as he was being stoned to death, despite that the Bible says that he saw the heavens opened, and the Son of Man was standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7).  In this model, it seems that the early Saints were passing into a hell on earth while Saul was ravishing the Church (Acts 8).

And let us take a look at a parable Jesus shared about a rich man who died and was in Hades. (Bell also examines this parable, but for a much different reason.)  Luke 16:19-31 tells us a parable of this unnamed rich man and a poor begger named Lazarus.  Lazarus sat out side the rich man's gates starving.  Dogs licked Lazurus' sores, while the rich man did nothing for him.  In the parable, Lazarus ends up in heaven while the rich man ends up in hell.  There is a chasm between the two that does not allow anyone to pass from one place to the other (Luke 16:26).  But looking through the paradigm Rob Bell is giving us, it seems that before the two died, Lazarus was in hell, not the rich man.

In this parable, the dead rich man calls out to Abraham (who is with Lazarus) for mercy, but Abraham reminds the suffering man, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received the good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish" (Luke 16:25, ESV).  And even later, the rich man begs that his brothers be warned so that they may repent (Luke 16:30) and avoid this . . . this what?  The rich man says "agony." Agony for what?  Could it be punishment?  But punishment for what?  His sin.  Maybe for neglecting the poor; maybe neglecting Jesus as Jesus discussed in Matthew 25 (another passage Bell examines for entirely different purposes in the previous chapter about heaven).  Doesn't this make sense in light of Romans 6:23 which states that the wages of sin is death?  Doesn't this make the gospel, that is, that Christ created a bridge across this chasm, seem like amazing news!  The painting that was so frightful to Bell is the bridge, and the reason it is a cross is because that is how Jesus made the bridge.

As I thought about those Rwandan teens, I couldn't help but think about the people inflicting "hell" upon these children.  They may have actually lived rather well, like the rich man.  And what about the rapist? And what about the religious people who stoned Stephen to death?  What about Saul?  It doesn't seem that there was a punishment or agonizing hell on earth for them.  Bell's hell on earth seems only to be agony and suffering for the victims.  Does the Bible really teach that the victims suffer hell on earth, a biblical hell, for the sins committed against them?  Or as with the rich man, does it seem that this judgment and punishment comes in the afterlife?

And what about the feelings and experiences of a cocaine addict or how the suffering a man might feel after he has sinned by having a marital affair?  Has God cast any of these living people in to hell, or at least a hell on earth? (And again, we can't say Mahatma Gandhi is in hell but it's okay to declare that these living people could be in hell?)  The answer is no, God has not cast these living people into hell on earth.  For the victims, we might think of this suffering in light of 2 Corinthians 1:1-11 and Romans 8:28.  These victims are not cast away from God.  And for the perpetrators who are suffering as a result of their own sin, we might call this conviction in some cases, or it may be that the law is acting like a schoolmaster (Galatians 3), all for the benefit of their salvation.  God may feel distant to them, but only because they have pushed him away, done as an act of their own self punishment.  But God has not cast them to the burning trash heap of hell, not yet anyway.  God is not neglecting them; he loves them and desires good things for them.

It may seem that the Bible only talks of hell as a garbage dump as Bell tries to present it.  (He says that the only mention of hell is the Greek word gehenna. But even staying on the surface of semantics, this argument neglects 2 Peter 2:4's use of the word tartaroō.)  And of course it would seem that there are very little mentions of hell or any kind of punishment if we only look for the word gehenna.  And if we neglect Jesus' parables and much of the symbolic hints of punishment and reward, and even much of the direct statements about a punishment for sin after death, we might think that hell is not that big of a deal.  We could falsely draw the conclusion that Jesus wasn't that concerned about hell.  But that would be a mistake.  Before you incorrectly draw that conclusion, read some passages in the Bible again, without anybody's commentary.  Here are just a few examples; there are many more: Genesis 37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31; Numbers 16:30, 33; Deuteronomy 32:22; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 22:6; 1 Kings 2:6, 9; Job 7:9; 11:8; 14:13; 17:13, 16; 21:13; 24:19; 26:6; Psalms 6:5; 9:17; Matthew 3:12; 5:22, 29–30; 7:23; 10:28; 11:23; 13:24-30, 42-43, 47-50; 16:18; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:32-33; Mark 9:43–47; Luke 3:17; 10:15; 12:5; 16:23; John 15:6; Acts 2:27, 31; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 9:2; 14:9-11; 18:8; 19:20; and 20:13–15

And I propose that if we are to look for any example of hell on earth we must look to the specific moment while Christ was on the cross as a propitiation for our sins; that is, taking on the sins of the world which were laid upon him (Isaiah 53:4-6; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10).  In that moment, when it appeared that Jesus was isolated from the Father, he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34).  In that moment, Jesus was making a way for us.  And if anything were going to make an argument for hell on earth, it must be this moment.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 4)."

* I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book, Love Wins.
** Photo of "The Poor Lazarus at the Rich Man's Door" by James Joseph Jacques Tissot is used with permission from the Brooklyn Museum.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 2)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Rob Bell opens Chapter Two, his chapter on heaven, with a discussion of some artwork that hung (or still hangs) in his grandmother's home for as long as Bell can remember.  There is a picture of the painting in the book on page 20.  (HarperOne has made every effort to obtain permission to use the creepy picture, but seems to be unable to find its creator).  On the right side of the picture is a smoky, dirty, polluted world.  Running through the picture is a huge chasm and spanning that chasm like a bridge is an enormous cross.  People are walking on the cross to the other side where a very sunny, large, clean city is located.  It gave Bell and his sister the creeps, although it's difficult to know what exactly caused the feeling in Ruth.  She doesn't say (22).   Bell however, seems to be disturbed that the picture suggests that people leave one place to go to another.  Somewhere else.  He writes, "From what we can see, the people in the painting are going somewhere, somewhere they've chosen to go, and they're leaving something behind so that they can go there" (23).  This idea is Bell's launching point into his discussion about heaven. 

Before reading Chapter Two, I got the sense that the picture is symbolic of the cross making a way for one world to be bridged to another, so people can go from a life destined for hell to a life in and among the Kingdom of Heaven.  A chasm between a world of death and yuckiness was now bridged by Jesus' work on the cross to a world of life and beauty, free from such yuckiness.  It would seem that people (who were originally on the yucky side) are able to go to the other side but the things of death's side will remain where they are, separated from the amazing city.  These things might be "war, rape, greed, injustice, violence, pride, division, exploitation, and disgrace"-- things Bells says, "will not be able to survive in the world to come" (36).  But I quickly learned that Bell did not see the same symbolism that I observed.  He saw people escaping to someplace else. And he didn't like what he saw.

On the one hand, Bell attacks an immature, non-biblical view of heaven, one of winged people playing harps and bouncing from cloud to cloud.  He takes some time to demonstrate that the new heaven and earth will be much like the physical world in which we live, only without rape, corporate greed, and oil spills. (It might be worth noting that he doesn't express his thoughts with words and idea such as sin or the temptation of sin.)  It will be an earth like the one prior to Genesis 3.  It's here, on earth, not somewhere else.  (Regarding the new heaven and earth, I agree with Bell on this topic.)  But for Bell, when we die, we don't go anywhere else, not at all, because heaven is right here--this seems to be the argument, at least the idea he's promoting.  But I think he takes this a little too far.  He seems to neglect passages of the Bible that suggest that Jesus was going somewhere to prepare a place for his people.  (Bell discussed this somewhat in Chapter One so I discussed it and some Scriptures related to this idea in the post that looked at that chapter.)  Even Bell himself can't get away from the idea of people going somewhere (maybe before they come back here).  In making a later argument about the physical, earthy idea of heaven, Bell writes,
"Paul writes to the Corinthians about two kinds of bodies.  The first is the kind we each inhabit now, the kind that gets old and weary and eventually gives out on us.  The second kind is one he calls "imperishable" (1 Cor. 15), one immune to the ravages of time, one we'll receive when heaven and earth are one.  Prior to that, then, after death we are without a body.  In heaven, but without a body. A body is of the earth. Made of dust. Part of this creation, not that one.  Those currently 'in heaven' are not, obviously, here.  And so they are with God, but without a body" (56, italics added for emphases). 
But while he is making an argument about the present incompleteness of heaven and earth, Bell alludes to somewhere else.   So is it possible that when people die, they go to this temporary place--where they have no body--to wait for a time when the yucky side of the world will be remade as it was before the fall in Genesis 3?  Intentionally or not, Bell himself makes a good argument for this; and, this idea does seem to suggest that people do in fact go somewhere that's not here with all the bad things Bell lists, at least for a time.  I think he's being too hard on that picture at his grandmother's house.  And he's being hard on other Christians.

Bell also points out that some people think of heaven like a mansion, but he says that the word "mansion" appears nowhere in the Bible's descriptions of heaven (43).  I found this statement rather interesting because I've always thought a mansion was a big house with lots of rooms.  John 14:2 doesn't say the specific word, "mansion"; but Jesus says, "In my father's house there are many rooms.  If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?" (ESV).  It seems that place, someplace, where Jesus is going, has lots of rooms.  Maybe like a mansion?

From here, Bell shifts to an attack on matters of when one enters the Kingdom of Heaven, and what one must do in order to be granted admittance.   He looks at passages that deal with the Kingdom of Heaven now and argues against Christians that primarily see the Kingdom of Heaven as a future event. He also attacks the various ideas of how one is accepted or inaugurated into the Kingdom of Heaven.  He's rather critical of a sinner's prayer, and he discusses the sinner on the cross.  Although to me, the non-verbal story being told in that narrative seems to suggest a recognition of sin and a submission to King Jesus.  Is scriptural approach seems selective.  For a discussion of what the Bible has to say about the Kingdom of God, please visit this post

Bell also paints a picture of a hardworking single mom trying her best to do good.  He says she's faithful with what she as been given.  "She's a woman of character and substance" (53). Then Bell asks, "Is she the last who Jesus says will be first?" (53).  In contrast to this, Bell discusses the people on magazine covers who are "often beautiful, rich famous, talented people embroiled in endless variations of scandal and controversy" (54).  Of these people, Bell asks, "Are we seeing the first who will be last that Jesus spoke of?" (54).  But never is there a conversation about what these people think of Jesus.  No discussion of the necessity of Christ or his atonement.  (I'm not sure the words "atonement" or "resurrection" have appeared anywhere in the book thus far, and "repentance" and "surrender" appear nowhere in a positive light if they appear at all.)  And I wonder, how is it okay to speculate about the status of these people but not the status of Mahatma Gandhi (1).  Does this seem like a double-standard?

I feel that Bell's picture of a physical heaven is a biblical representation of the heaven in which believers will live out eternity, with dirt and plants and work, free of sin and temptation and the effects of the fall.  But I also feel that Bell doesn't represent the Kingdom of God well.  It has aspects of now and future but those aspects are not the same.  It's complex.  However, there is an indication in the Bible that not everybody is automatically a citizen of this Kingdom.  And it's citizens are among the Kingdom now and after death.  (For more on the Kingdom of Heaven, with lots of Scripture references worth further study, please look over this post on the topic.) Bell, however, seems to be on the far side, arguing the now against people on the far other side arguing the future. He really wants to make the Kingdom of God simple, so he can then take that simple thing that he's created, call it the standard Christian believe and then argue that it's actually more complex than we think.

And there is one glaring problem found on pages 57 and 58. Bell writes, "Let me be clear: heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time like days and years, marching endlessly in to the future.  That's not a category or concept we find in the Bible" (58, emphasis added for effect).  To make his point Bell shares a word study that seems almost like an intentional misrepresentation.  He examines the Greek word aion, which generally means age, a period of time, forever, or a world without end.  It also appears as a form of negation which is often translated "never." But Bell says it's better to think of it only as a time, or rather as an "intense experience" (58).  He then states, "This is why a lot of translators choose to translate aion as 'eternal.' By this they don't mean the literal passing of time; they mean transcending time, belong to another realm altogether" (58).  There are some serious problems here.  First, there is no concept of an eternal time in the Bible?  And the translators don't think this has anything to do with time?  Really?  And what about the Greek word aionios? This different word has the same root but it is an altogether different word.  In its simplest form it means past, present, and future, eternal, everlasting, without end.  Has Bell forgot this word in his word study?  It's rather important as we examine this topic.

Here are the New Testament passages where the word aion appears (some are in the negated form often translated as 'never'): Matthew 12:32; 13:22, 39–40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mark 3:29; 4:19; 10:30; Luke 1:33, 55, 70; 16:8; 18:30; 20:34–35; John 4:14; 6:51, 58; 8:35, 51–52; 9:32; 10:28; 11:26; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; Acts 3:21; 15:18; Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 12:2; 16:27; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 2:6–8; 3:18; 8:13; 10:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 9:9; 11:31; Gal 1:4–5; Ephesians 1:21; 2:2, 7; 3:9, 11, 21; Philippians 4:20; Colossians 1:26; 1 Timothy 1:17; 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10, 18; Titus 2:12; Hebrews 1:2, 8; 5:6; 6:5, 20; 7:17, 21, 24, 28; 9:26; 11:3; 13:8, 21; 1 Peter 1:25; 4:11; 5:11; 2 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:17; 2 John 1:2; Jude 1:13, 25; Revelation 1:6, 18; 4:9–10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 14:11; 15:7; 19:3; 20:10; and 22:5.  Look at these passages and note the context and translational use.

But wait, there's that other word that Bell completely neglects--aionios that has the eternal, forever, time marching on without end aspect.  Look at where this word appears in the New Testament, and notice its context, usage, and English translation: Matthew 18:8; 19:16, 29; 25:41, 46; Mark 3:29; 10:17, 30; Luke 10:25; 16:9; 18:18, 30; John 3:15–16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2–3; Acts 13:46, 48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 16:25–26; 2 Corinthians 4:17–5:1; Galatians 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2:16; 1 Timothy 1:16; 6:12, 16; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2:10; Titus 1:2; 3:7; Philemon 1:15; Hebrews 5:9; 6:2; 9:12, 14–15; 13:20; 1 Peter 5:10; 2 Peter 1:11; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jude 1:7, 21; and Revelation 14:6.  These are not the same word and they each carry their own meaning.  Notice that these two different words appear in the same books by the same authors.  Sometimes they appear in the same paragraphs, and in a couple cases, even in the same sentence! (See Mark 10:30 and Luke 18:30 for example).  Has Rob Bell intentionally neglected the word aionios in order to try to make his point?  

Despite the word study problem, at the conclusion of the second chapter, I feel better about the book than I did at the conclusion of Chapter One.  Bell is at least making an attempt to answer some (although not many) of his proposed questions.  He is trying to describe what happens when we die and he's punching holes in a misguided, non-Christian view of heaven.  However, an occasional swing is aimed at the wrong target.  And sometimes, it's a little below the belt or misses the mark completely.  There are discussions of Scripture that seem a little twisted in order to serve his purpose, especially in some of his word studies.  I still get the feeling Bell is angry at some fringe Christian ideas that were popular in the 1980s; and rather than trying to tell a story of Christ's Good News as he suggested he was going to do, he's still reacting to ideas and practices of Christianity that he doesn't care much for.


Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 3)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book.  
** The photo of Rob Bell is the copyright of Mars Hill Bible Church and a color version appears on the back cover of Love Wins. 

What is the Kingdom of God?

I once taught a class where the kingdom of God was of chief interest.  For the sake of time, we didn't read all of the Scriptures listed below, but I did print this material as a handout to the class and I felt it would be worth posting here.  The question at hand is, what is the Bible referring to when it mentions the kingdom of God? 
 

THE KINGDOM OF GOD
A Systematic View

The kingdom of God (nearly interchangeable with kingdom of heaven, kingdom of Christ, kingdom of our Lord, and sometimes just the kingdom) is discussed often throughout the Bible. It can seem complex, because it is inside creation, outside creation, and above creation. Like the Trinity of God, there is no earthy analogy to adequately describe it. Presently, we only see it in bits and pieces but our understanding of it comes through faith.

“[The kingdom of God] is simply the reign of God in human hearts wherever obedience to God is found.”1

The Kingdom of God is not the Church. “The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and, derivatively, the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In the biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live under it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself. Jesus’ disciples belong to the Kingdom as the Kingdom belongs to them; but they are not the Kingdom. The Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men.”2

The kingdom of God (or kingdom of heaven) is not strictly speaking of the afterlife or future place or future existence. It has an “already/not yet” aspect about it present in many of the discussions about it throughout the Bible.

The kingdom of God should not be mistaken with the sovereignty or rule of God. God is sovereign over all of creation. However, presently, one can be inside or outside of the kingdom of God. And we do not truly, positively experience it until we are within the kingdom of God.

There are 66 uses of “kingdom of God” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of God.” (Matt 6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43; Mark 1:15; 4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14–15, 23–25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43; Luke 4:43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62; 10:9, 11; 11:20; 13:18, 20, 28–29; 14:15; 16:16; 17:20–21; 18:16–17, 24–25, 29; 19:11; 21:31; 22:16, 18; 23:51; John 3:3, 5; Acts 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23, 31; Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Col 4:11; 2 Th 1:5.)

There are 32 uses of “kingdom of heaven” in the New Testament. There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11–12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3–4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1.)

There are 2 uses of “kingdom of our Lord” in the New Testament. (2 Pet 1:11; Rev 11:15.) There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “kingdom of our Lord.”

There are 3 uses of “gospel of the kingdom” in the New Testament, and all of which are found in Matthew. (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14). There is no Hebrew use of this term that translates into English as “gospel of the kingdom.” Matthew also uses the “word of the kingdom” in Matt 13:19.

There is 1 use of “The kingdom of Christ and God” and it’s found in Eph 5:5.

Not every use for kingdom without the various above qualifiers in the New Testament is referring to the kingdom of God, but many do. (There are 55 uses of kingdom not followed by either "of God" or "of heaven.") Significant examples include Matt 4:23; 6:10; 8:12; 9:35; 13:19, 38, 41, 43; 16:28; 20:21; 24:14; 25:34; 26:29; Mark 11:10; Luke 1:33; 11:2; 12:31–32; 22:29–30; 23:42; John 18:36; Acts 20:25; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 1:13; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 1:8; 12:28; James 2:5; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 1:6; 5:10; and 12:10.

The Hebrew word for kingdom is used though the Old Testament mostly for earthly kingdoms but there are references to the Kingdom of God. Examples include: Ex 19:6 (Kingdom of Priests), 2 Sam 7:10–16 & 1 Chr 17:9–14 (near/far picture of Kingdom), Psa 45:6; 103:19; 145:11–13 (Blurred lines between Sovereign rule and the Kingdom of God), Dan 4:3 (everlasting Kingdom), and Dan 7:18, 22 (future view of the Kingdom).

___
1 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 1998), 1163.
2 George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament; quoted by Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1994), 863.

* Photo by Niall McAuley is registered under a creative commons license.

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 1)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."] 

Bell ends Chapter One by stating, "But this isn't just a book of questions.  It's a book of responses to these questions" (19).  I wish I would have read this statement before reading the first chapter because Chapter One is loaded with question marks--those printed on the page and many of my own.  Maybe the biggest question is how Bell is going to address all of these claims, questions, and puzzles in the remaining 177 pages.  That, in-and-of-itself, may take a divine miracle.  I'm somewhat concerned that Bell won't actually address many of these questions, leaving them hanging in the poor light in which he has presented them.  And if this turns out to be the case, the most fitting genre for Love Wins will be tragedy.  However, if Bell can manage to address each of the question marks that he's blasted into this first chapter, this book may be the greatest thing written in the past ten years.  But he's laid out a tough road ahead, and he has left an after taste with the manner in which he has asked the questions.

The chapter opens with a discussion about an art show that included a piece that quoted Mahatma Gandhi.  Evidently, someone had posted a handwritten note on the art piece that said Gandhi's in hell.  For whatever reason, Bell didn't feel the need to include what the Gandhi quote said and I wonder if it would have shed any different light on this story?  (If anybody knows what the quote was, please contact me and share.)  Following this brief narrative comes the first question marks.  Bell calls into question if Gandhi is really in hell and how anybody can possibly know this.  And again, Bell asks subtly attacking questions against the traditional Christian view of some going to hell and some spending an eternity in anguish (2).  He doesn't come out and make any claims here; he only asks questions.  But these questions were worded in a way that many of them could appear rather comfortably in a work by Christopher Hitchens.

Bell asks, "Does God punish people for thousands of yeas with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?" (2).  To this, I as the reader ask, "What does the Bible say about that?" Expecting some kind of support or biblical answer for any of the questions presented in Chapter One will only leave the reader wanting.  Bell doesn't get into the Bible for answers here, not yet anyway.  Instead he states, "This doesn't just raise disturbing questions about God, it raises questions about the beliefs themselves" (2).  Then comes many, many more questions.  Sixteen, in fact, before a sentence is written without a question mark.  And another five after that.

The questions sound like those coming from someone who really doesn't care for Christianity or God.  They are serious and legitimate questions, but I wonder if Bell has presented them in a way that is building the arguments for his book?  Maybe.  But through the specific questions, it becomes clear that Bell is using these questions to attack Christian ideas such is the biblical teaching that God chooses his creation, or the judgment aspects that the Bible teaches about God, and the reality of hell.  "What kind of God is that?" he asks (3).  Yes.  Indeed.  Bell seems to be asking just the right questions to pitch his argument upon.  And as he is asking, I keep thinking, what does the Bible say?  It doesn't matter what we want the answers to be if the answers about God do not line up with what God has told us about himself in his revelation to us, the Bible. That is, unless God is an evil liar, but Bell hasn't yet asked that question yet.

I realize that the Bellites, Bellinists, and Bell supporters will likely say, "He's just asking questions!" but it is the way Bell is doing so that I find so concerning.  It's the tone.  And it's how he's stacked the questions together.  There is an implication behind the way he's posed these questions.  Would the same defense apply if I asked, "Does Bell ever read his Bible?  Does Bell hate Christianity, and if so, is he wanting to create a new theological faith system?  What kind of pastor is this? And how could this possibly be biblical teaching that anyone would want to sit under?"  Just a few questions, but they come loaded with magnum charges.  Many of Bell's questions in Chapter One have the same tone, as if at any moment Bell is going to pull the trigger and sent a fiery volley at traditional Christianity.   

As the chapter advances, Bell begins to attack the Christian Church (although at times he's actually attacking his created caricature of the Church.)  Occasionally he draws from specific examples that are sad and unfortunate, but picking one or two cases like these is as unfair as treating Mars Hill Bible Church and the Westboro Baptist Church as one in the same.  At other times, he questions the general practices of the typical local church body, causing me to wonder why he is so troubled by the way his brothers and sisters teach and preach the Gospel.  I might be okay if he'd open up more rather than just asking the questions and moving on.  For example, Bell seems disturbed by the practice of an alter call, or at least a pastor (or anyone or that matter) leading someone in a specific prayer.  Why? What about it is troubling?  Maybe I'd agree if Bell expanded a little.  He's also seems troubled with any communication with God about the matter of salvation. Again, why?  And he also questions how God could elect some and not others.  Details might help me understand the problem.  So at this point, I'm left thinking it doesn't seem going to heaven has anything to do with God (at least the God Bell has presented) or the individual.  Is this where the book is headed or will this be an unresolved question?  But realize that he's only asking questions and it is my mind that is attempting to determine where he's trying to take me and how he's trying to get me there.

I'm not yet convinced I want to hop in the Bell-wagon.  From his questions thus far, I'm disturbed with Rob Bell as much as he seems to be with Christianity.

One area I found rather troubling is Bell's concern that Christians would teach people that when they die they will go somewhere.  I'm not yet sure why he's disturbed by this considering that on more than one occasion Jesus discussed going somewhere. (Luke 23:43, 24:51, John 8:14, 8:21-22, 13:33, 13:36, 14:2-4, for example).  He also asks about all of those people that don't claim to be Christian but live more Christlike than some Christians.  I hope if he answers this question, he will look at biblical passages like Romans 10:9, 1Corinthians 12:3, 1John 1:9, and 1John 4:3. Of course Bell masks this attack by ending every statement with question mark.

Then Bell takes a break, and when the roulette ball of questions has finally landed, it's on the topic of a personal relationship with our Lord and Creator.  He argues (not questions) that someone might interrupt his line of questioning to say that no matter how it happens, salvation comes through a personal relationship with Jesus (10).   "The problem, however," writes Bell, "is that the phrase 'personal relationship' is found nowhere in the Bible" (10).  Bell then goes back to asking his questions again.  But under this Bellonian logic/theology, neither is the Holy Trinity mentioned by name in the Bible--does this mean it doesn't exist?  As for personal relationship, I wonder how Bell reads John 15:12-15?  Or what about the passages that call believers brothers and sisters, or the comparison of a wedding feast? And what about Psalm 139? These all sound rather personal, even if they exclude the exact phrase, "personal relationship."

By the end of Chapter One, I found myself wondering if Rob Bell considers himself Christian.  Would he fellowship with the believers at my church?  He seems rather upset by Christianity, or at least how he understands Christianity.  Now, as I continue to read, maybe I'll start to see a different Rob Bell, maybe his answers will leave me feeling differently; I fully admit that.  But after the prologue and this chapter, I can see why some have had trouble with this book.  I'm having trouble with this book.  I sincerely hope that Bell starts to address these questions, specifically with biblical support, otherwise, he's merely on the bandwagon with the vocal critics of Christianity, and those that reject the teachings of the Bible.

If you haven't figured it out by now, Chapter One has left a foul taste in my mouth.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 2)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Preface)

[This review is a review in parts.  If you are just joining this review, start with "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)."]

I remember a time in my own life when I was younger and trying to understand my critique of what I thought Christians were compared to what I thought they should be.  I would often see something I didn't care for within the social aspects of the American Christian church and then suggest that what I saw as not biblical or was somehow not at all in-line with what Jesus might have taught.  I say "might" because honestly, I wasn't reading God's Word much and I certainly wasn't submitting my life to its authority.  Instead, I was trying to make Christianity what I wanted it to be so I could call myself a Christian.  Looking back, it's clear to me now that I wanted to stand in God's place, and I believed that the people I was critiquing, the Church--the very Bride of Christ (John 3:29, Ephesians 5:23, Revelation 21:2, 9)--had "hijacked" real Christianity.  They had mutated the real story of the Bible, or so I thought when I looked in from where I was at that point in my life.  So you can imagine what ran through my mind when on the very first page of the preface I read that Jesus' story has been "hijacked" (vi).

Following the claim that there has been a hijacking, Bell seems to suggest that the traditionally taught idea that, "a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better," is misguided and toxic to Jesus' message of love, peace, and forgiveness (vii).  If I could send this book back through history to the me I just described above, that Bryan would hit these very first pages and instantly fall in love with the book.  Being in such agreement, the Bryan of the past would then likely find himself continually nodding with every paragraph, eating up every word.

What's strange however, is that there is no suggestion, no hint (at least in the prologue) as to when or why this serious hijacking happened.  But there is no reason to think this particular response to the alleged hijacking is new.  Instead, Bell implies that this teaching has always been around as part of the historic, orthodox Christian faith.  It's an "ancient, ongoing discussion surrounding the resurrected Jesus" (x-xi).  It's a "deep, wide, and diverse" conversation according to Bell (x-xi). It is my hope that subsequent chapters will address this hijacking because this is a serious claim to place upon people that are part of Jesus' Church.  Or I guess it could be directed at those Bell believes do not stand with Jesus; it's tough to tell because this hijacking was just sort of slipped in without much explanation. 

At this point, Bell seems to suggest that the idea that only a few will enter heaven is deplorable (viii).  This is not to say that Bell will hold this position throughout the remainder of his book, but that's the impression I'm left with at this point.  This statement however, leaves me very curious about how Bell will approach this idea in light of Luke 13:23-24, where someone asks of Jesus if only a few will be saved.  Jesus replies, "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able" (Luke 13:24, ESV).  It could be that the issue Rob is having is not the idea of only a few entering heaven, but maybe something else.  I suppose I'll find out as I move further into the book. 

But Bell does make some good points in his preface.  He is quick to point out that some communities do not allow for healthy discussion of tough questions.  In this, he is right.  He goes on to say, "There is no question that Jesus cannot handle, no discussion too volatile, no issue too dangerous.  [...] Jesus frees us to call things what they are" (x).  Again, Bell is right.  Therefore, I feel that Bell is giving me permission to examine what follows in this book by the same standard. And I also agree with Bell in that it will be thrilling if this book brings people into open discussion about this important topic, no matter how vibrant, diverse, or messy (xi).

It should also be noted that this discussion of the preface looks to be almost as long, if not longer than the preface itself.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Chapter 1)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

Love Wins by Rob Bell (Prolegomena)

For the moment at least, it is hard to miss the controversy of Rob Bell's newest book, Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived (HarperOne 2011).  Not only has Bell's book caused an explosive discussion among evangelical Christians, thousands of words have been written about Rob Bell and his book, posted in many corners of the World Wide Web.  (Here comes more.)  Some are drawing lines in the sand while others are merely curious.  Some have wished Bell farewell while others have staunchly defended the author. More than one Christian commentator has even suggested that this could cause a tear between Christians on one side and Christians on the other.

Discussing his book, Bell has made the rounds on the various morning talk-news programs.  And it seems to be having an impact upon sales because the book--which released earlier than anticipated due to the firestorm--has hovered around the top sales spots on Amazon.com right from the start.
 
I can't seem to find it now, but some years ago, a friend of mine who attends Mars Hill Bible Church where Rob Bell is the teaching pastor sent me a CD recording of a sermon series by Rob Bell titled, "Love Wins."  Also in the package with the CD was a bumper sticker simply reading, "Love Wins."  Talking with this friend recently, I've learned that Love Wins the book was spawned by that sermon series.

To get a feel for the book, here's an advertisement video from Rob Bell and HarperOne:


After watching this video the first time, I could see why some Christians could be concerned, theologically.   But when I made this very statement with some fellow Christians, I was told that I shouldn't form any kind of opinion (not even about the video) until I've read the book.  (This from people who also hadn't read the book.)  I'm not in complete agreement with that idea, but that's a conversation for another time. That being said, I've decided to read the book and discuss it here, one chapter at a time.

The book will stand completely on its own merits for the purpose of this multi-part review, meaning I'm going to do my best to ignore Bell's previous books or his recent media clips.  As I read I will post my thoughts, questions, and concerns.  And I realize that some of the conclusions I draw at the beginning of this process may not be my final conclusions of the book.  Only time, 201 pages, and nine or ten posts will tell.  

I hope you'll choose to join me on this journey through the new book, Love Wins.

Next up, "Love Wins by Rob Bell (Preface)."

*I have no material connection to Rob Bell or his book. 

What is Love?

Not too long ago, someone asked me, "What is love?"

What a question!

When asked about the greatest commandment, Jesus replied that it is to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. He then said the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:36-41, Mark 12:28-13, Luke 10:25-28) All of the Law—that is, all of what was understood at the time as the instructions from God—hangs on these two principles, and both principles require love. In fact, they demand love. But what is love? That’s a challenging question.

Some might say that love is a chemical reaction in the brain and body, nothing more. Of course anybody who has loved another--be it a parent, spouse, child, or friend--knows that love is something more. And anybody that has ever loved another with no hope of gaining anything knows that there is no logical reason for love to be reduced to something of an instinctual biological reaction.

In addition, our society uses love to extreme degrees. One can say, "I love dark chocolate" and in the next breath say, "I love his wife."  To a teenage girl headed to junior prom, love means something substantially different than to the 85-year-old man standing beside the grave of his wife of 63 years.

Love is an interesting gift. It is spectacular and special. It connects us to one another in ways often unexplainable. There is nothing else in the world like love, which should not come as a surprise considering that John tells us that not only is love from God (1 John 7) but that God is himself love (1 John 8). In addition, Jesus taught his disciples that there is no greater love than one who lays his life down for his friends (John 15:13).

Love is complex and for many, this answer will not suffice.  Too often people have a picture of love as some kind of euphoric feeling they get from having that one and only special someone in their lives.  But this picture is not really correct because it's selfish.  This picture of love is about a person wanting to be loved and getting something from it. No, love is something more.  It's not selfish and it's not about getting.  Love is an action word.  It is a relationship.  I've even heard it said that love is a verb.  So no matter how people try to explain love, I find it's best to turn to the Bible because where we see Jesus (in any book of the Bible), love will always be nearby.



*Photo by Stephen Poff is registered under a creative commons license.

Balthasar Hubmaier: Forgotten Reformer

INTRODUCTION
Among modern evangelicals, interest in the Protestant Reformation seems to tie many preachers and writers together. It is as if referencing Calvin or Luther nearly grants some kind of mystical weight to any point. Works by Calvin and Luther, and books about them, fill pastors’ and professors’ shelves. Occasionally Zwingli is remembered but not often; Balthasar Hubmaier on the other hand, is a forgotten theologian, despite the reality that his theology is closer to that of most evangelicals today. Where Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli remained magisterial, finding it impossible to separate the Church from the State, Hubmaier believed that separation is necessary for the free will of the believer and the establishment of the free church. The Lord’s Supper remained a theological difficulty for the popular reformers—not so with Hubmaier. Luther and Calvin stood firm on the matter of paedobaptism while Hubmaier understood that the Bible teaches that baptism is for believers only and that the Church is an institution of baptized believers. He was—despite disagreement with Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin—baptized by immersion, a belief and action that eventually cost him his physical life. Hubmaier was formally educated, trained under Johann Eck, and published a substantial amount of theological material. Although once a Catholic priest in the Rosensburg Cathedral, Waldshut in Breisgau, and in Schaffhausen, he eventually rejected much of his Catholic theology, joining with the Anabaptist movement and marring Elisabeth Hügeline.1 Hubmaier was imprisoned and tortured under Zwingli’s orders, and on March 10, 1528, burned at the stake.2 Elisabeth was drowned a few days later.3“Some people,” writes Wenger, “compared his death with that of Jan Hus in 1415.”4

Balthasar Hubmaier’s life and theological work is a significant but often overlooked contribution to the Church as evangelical Christians understand it today. While it cannot be said that without Hubmaier’s work the free church of Baptist and many other denominations would not be, it can and will be argued in this post that Hubmaier was a significant and radical reformer who should not be overlooked, but remembered, read, and understood for his brave and faithful contribution to not only the Reformation, but the evangelical Church. This post will first examine the setting of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in which Hubmaier lived. Then the scope will narrow to his life and theology, followed by an investigation of Hubmaier’s contribution to the Protestant Reformation and the Church today.

BACKGROUND OF THE PERIOD
“As the fifteenth century came to a close,” writes González, “it was clear that the church was in need of profound reformation, and that many longed for it. The decline and corruption of the papacy was well known.”5 The late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, through religious, political, social, and educational circumstances were ripe for reformation. While it might have shocked the world to read Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses, it should have been because Luther was brave enough to say it, not because it came unexpectedly. If it had not been Luther, it surely would have been another. “[The Reformation] was not so much a trail blazed by Luther’s lonely comet, with other lesser luminaries in its train, ” argues D. F. Wright, “as the appearance over two or three decades of a whole constellation of varied color and brightness, Luther no doubt the most sparkling among them, but not all shining solely with his borrowed light.” The under girding of the Reformation was the humanist reformers. González argues, “Long before the Protestant Reformation broke out, there was a large network of humanists who carried the vast correspondence among themselves, and who hoped that their work would result in the reformation of the church.”6 In today’s terms, a humanist might be thought of as one who places or worships humanity over deity, often called a secular humanist;7 but the humanist of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were quite different. “In this context,” states González, “the term ‘humanist’ does not refer primarily to those who value human nature above all else, but rather to those who devote themselves to the ‘humanities,’ seeking to restore the literary glories of antiquity. The humanists of the sixteenth century differed greatly among themselves, but all agreed in their love for classical letters.”8 Often called the “Prince of Humanists,” Erasmus of Rotterdam is considered the godfather of the movement and its leader.9 Wright calls Erasmus the “morning star” of the constellation of the Reformation; further writing, “for most Reformers were trained humanists, skilled in the ancient languages, grounded in biblical and patristic sources, and enlightened by his pioneer printing of the Greek NT of 1516.”10

As education swung in the direction of humanism, studies in the biblical languages gained a foothold, and Catholic priests were being educated at the highest levels, it became difficult for some to overlook the abuses, corruption, and troubled theology of the Catholic Church. Luther sounded the alarm when he struck hammer to nail on the door at Wittenberg in 1517, and many others joined him in what started as an effort to reform the Church. However, reformation was not to be and eventually schisms began. Although not the first to separate from Rome, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli became the front men of the Reformation, climbing up to the shoulders of their predecessors such as the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Lollardy, and Hus to look and then go beyond where those before them had attempted to venture. Meanwhile, the Pope fought back. Entire geographic regions shifted from Catholic to Lutheran to Catholic to Calvinist and so on, the various nation states of Switzerland being the most unstable. The social and economic climates were tossed in the storm of theological shifts church-state relations. In this setting, those in disagreement with one another were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Wars were fought over which religious group or leader would have control of the various European states.

Throughout Europe, ideas started surfacing that questioned the practice that one would be a member of a church, and therefore a citizen of the state, simply by birth into it.11 Luther and Calvin sided with Rome on this matter, as did Zwingli, eventually. Others, hoping to be more obedient to Scripture saw it differently. “The church must not be confused with the rest of society,” writes González in explaining the minority opposing position.12 “Their essential difference is that, while one belongs to a society by the mere fact of being born into it, and through no decision on one’s own part, one cannot belong to the true church without a personal decision that effect.”13 This in and of itself was seen as a treasonous act against the state. González continues, “In consequence, infant baptism must be rejected, for it takes for granted that one becomes a Christian by being born in a supposedly Christian society. This obscures the need for a personal decision that stands at the very heart of the Christian faith.”14

The ideas of various disconnected radical reformers found a public voice in a group of students studying under Zwingli in Zurich. Calling themselves “The Brethren,” through careful reading and study of Scripture, decided that the reformation had not gone far enough. Members of this group, according to Lichty, “were highly educated young men, students at the universities or sometimes priests. The influence of humanist learning was strong among them, as was seen especially among the circle of Conrad Grebel in Zurich. Like Erasmus, they taught freedom of the will and were relatively optimistic about the possibilities of human betterment.”15 They were all recipients of infant baptism and believed that credo baptism was the only baptism taught in the Bible and obedience was necessary for the Church. Zwingli, their teacher and now a religious and political leader disagreed. So on January 21, 1525 in the public square in Zurich, Conrad Grabel baptized George Blaurock. Then Blaurock baptized several others, forming a congregation or a church of adults baptized as believers. Those baptized as adults were branded “Anabaptists,” meaning “rebaptizers.” They were quickly seen as subversive to the state for their radical theological views and therefore persecuted, often killed by drowning as symbolic irony.16 “All the initial leaders [of the Brethren], with the exception of Wilhelm Reublin,” records Estep, “were dead within five years. Zürch lost its three major Anabaptist leaders in short order. Grabel died of the plague in 1526. Felix Mantz became the first ‘Protestant’ to die at the hands of Protestants in 1527, and George Blaurock was burned at the stake in 1529. The suppression of Anabaptism in Switzerland almost completely exterminated the movement.”17 It is in this volatile time that we find Balthasar Hubmaier, joined by confession and believer’s baptism with the Brethren in Zurich.

THE LIFE OF HUBMAIER
Early Life as a Roman Catholic. Hubmaier was born in approximately 1480 or 1481, and he grew up in Friedberg, Germany,18 On occasion, he was known as Dr. Freidberg, presumably after his hometown or the University of Freidberg.19His upbringing was modest and Moore speculates that his basic education was in Friedberg; but then tentatively wanting to enter the priesthood, he likely went to the cathedral Latin school in Augsburg six miles to the West. He matriculated at the University of Freiburg in Breisgau in 1503. 20 “So advanced was Balthasar in his studies” writes Moore, “that he received the bachelor of arts degree after his first year at the university.”21 He continued to study theology under Dr. Johann Eck, although Hubmaier considered entering the field of medicine. Eck would soon there after “become the flaming defender of Catholic orthodoxy against the Lutheran reformation.”22 Also interesting to note is that not only was Hubmaier Eck’s favorite student, he was also a couple years older than his teacher.23

In 1507, Hubmaier was forced to take a job as a schoolteacher in Schaffhausen, Switzerland for financial reasons. However, as Moore quotes Eck, “he returned to his accustomed studies, which were under my guidance.”24 Once back to his studies, Hubmaier mastered Latin and studied Greek and Hebrew. He also studied with Johann Faber who would eventually persecute Hubmaier. After his ordination, he occasionally preached and served as a priest. When Eck left for the University of Ingolstadt in 1510, Hubmaier replaced him as rector.25 Packull reports that in Eck’s absence, “Hubmaier seemed to be involved in the defamation campaign against Eck's detractors. Along with Urbanus Rhegius, Hubmaier became one of Eck's1most controversial students.”26 Eighteen months later, Hubmaier followed Eck to Ingolstadt where he earned a Doctorate of Theology, upon which he was made a professor and given a preaching position in the city’s largest church. In 1516, Hubmaier took employment as a cathedral preacher in Regensburg.27

In Regensburg, Hubmaier lead a campaign against the Jews living in the city; however, the Jews had the protection of Emperor Maximilian I and Hubmaier was somewhat unsuccessful until the Emperor’s death. After hearing of the death, Hubmaier and the town residents continued and amplified their campaign, leading to the eviction of the Jews and the destruction of their synagogue. “In the tearing down of the synagogue,” writes Moore, “a master stonemason was injured, fatally, it appeared. A few hours later he revived, and the people said it was a miracle of the virgin Mary—manifesting her glory in the very place where she had been dishonored by the Jews. On the site of the demolished synagogue a Catholic chapel was erected and, at Hubmaier’s suggestion, named Beauteous Mary (zur schönen Maria).”28 This chapel not only became the responsibility of Hubmaier, it became a destination of a pilgrimage movement and was remodeled into a larger church building. In 1519, a papal bull granted 100 days off from purgatory for the visitors of Beauteous Mary and the place became a mad house of activity and miracle claims. Hubmaier sought duties elsewhere.29


Eventually, Hubmaier was offered a position as chief priest in Waldshut, a small Austrian town on the border of Hapsburg. “For about two years, 1521-1522, Hubmaier served as a model priest in Waldshut,” according to Moore.30 “He celebrated mass, preached effectively, presided in ceremonies and processions, even introduced new celebrations. As always, he sought to work in harmony with state and church authority.”31 However, he grew bored and reached out to the humanist Johann Aldephi, the town physician in the nearby Schaffhausen, Switzerland, as well as, Christian humanists Beatus Rhenanus, Johannes, Johannes Oecolampadius, and Wolfgang Rychard. As Zurich began undergoing reformation, Hubmaier also had regular correspondence with Desiderius Erasmus, Heinrich Glarean, and Konrad Pelikan. It was here that he engaged in detailed studies of the letters to the Corinthians and Romans. He also took visits to Freiburg and Ulm where he compared old and new ideas about church life. Maybe out of loneliness or boredom, he returned to Beauteous Mary as a chaplain but retained his position in Waldshut.32 However, returning to Beauteous Mary, all the excitement over proclamations of miracles caused Hubmaier a conflict of conscience. “His thinking had begun to take new directions,” writes Moore. “He was still quite uncertain, however, just where it would all lead.”33 Hubmaier felt uncomfortable dealing with the miracle claims, and although it would have been good for the Beauteous Mary’s visitor traffic, he could not publicize them. Moore writes, “Within a few weeks of taking up the work again in Rogensburg, he experienced what might fairly be called his most basic conversion. He became an evangelical.”34

The Transition. Although never claiming Lutheranism for himself, his beautiful; revelation of faith came as he was quietly meeting with a group of Lutherans in Rogensburg. Almost eminently he returned to Waldshut were he could study and explore his new convictions. “Hubmaier still had many questions in his mind,” states Moore, “but on thing he was firm: he theology, when worked out, must come from the Bible.”35 However, due to the changed nature of his preaching, his bishop filed a complaint about him. Hubmaier initiated contact, started establishing relationships with the Swiss reformers in the Zurich canton, and started making trips to reformation friendly towns. He preached to large crowds in churches and in open-air settings and he lead Bible studies. And he met with Zwingli in Zurich.36

It is difficult identify day or time when Hubmaier parted from his Catholic roots and sided with the Reformation in Switzerland; however, it seems that at least theologically, that day was already behind him by the time he had met with Zwingli the first time. Zwingli and Hubmaier spoke a few times, discussing a wide range of topics. On the topic of baptism, Moore writes, “They both agreed that the New Testament gave no real support for the practice of infant baptism and Zwingli said, Hubmaier reported later, that children should not be baptized until they had been instructed in the faith.”37 Later, and in the public spotlight, Zwingli reversed his position and Hubmaier was critical of him arguing, “You used to hold the same ideas, wrote and preached them from the pulpit openly; many hundreds of people have heard it from your mouth. But now all who say this of you are called liars. Yes, you say boldly that no such ideas have ever entered your mind and you go beyond that, things of which I will hold my tongue just now.”38 However, before the split between Hubmaier and Zwingli, Hubmaier was invited to the Second Zurich Disputation in October of 1523. Hubmaier spoke at the disputation and was clearly seen as a Zwinglian.39 It was here the Hubmaier argued, “For in all divisive questions and controversies only Scripture, canonized and sanctified by God himself should and must be the judge, no one else: or heaven and earth much fall (Matt. 24:35). [...] No the judgments of God can only be known out of the divine Word, as Scripture truly testifies to us. [...] For holy Scripture alone is the true light and lantern through which all human argument, darkness, and objections can be recognized.”40 Already, Hubmaier understood baptism to be for believers only and a symbolic act rather than a sacrament; and he, like Luther, stood firmly on Sola Scriptura.

Returning to Waldshut, Hubmaier’s separation only continued. Potter writes, “Waldshut, however, was no part of the Swiss Confederation; it was Catholic city ruled for Charles V by Ferdinand of Austria. A Catholic ruler must root out heresy or be in danger of excommunication.”41 Word got back to the various authorities and Hubmaier and his Waldshut were investigated and branded “Lutherans.” It was 1524. Earlier that year, Hubmaier published his Eighteen Thesis, which clearly demonstrate a separation from Catholic theology and Hubmaier wrote to his friends in Ratisbon, according to Potter, “that he had no intention of returning to his duties [in Waldshut]: he was now no longer an orthodox Roman Catholic.”42Based on the Eighteen Thesis, Hubmaier held strongly to Sola Fide, preaching in the language of the people, and open access to the Bible; and he rejected purgatory, the mass, pilgrimages, devotion to images, and forced celibacy. “Truth Is Unkillable!” he boldly declared.43 Ferdinand demanded the suppression of the Lutheran teaching—instead, the city stood by Hubmaier, declared its independence, and removed all Catholic priests from the city. Shortly there after, the Peasants’ war began in the nearby Black Forrest.44 It was also in this year that distance grew between Zwingli and Hubmaier, and by the end of 1524, Hubmaier had sided with Grabel against Zwingli and his beliefs.7 Hubmaier was officially and Anabaptist.

New Life and the Worldly Troubles it Brought. With the publication of his Eighteen Theses, Hubmaier started a post-Catholic publishing career the dwarfed the sum of all the other early Anabaptist leaders combined. However, his writing and preaching placed his believes in plain view, bringing persecution upon him and his parish. Due to political and Catholic pressure, Hubmaier sought and found refuge in Schaffhausen. While the canton of Schaffhausen was not his defender, they also took a position of tolerance and let him be, despite numerous requests that Hubmaier be handed over to the Austrian authorities or the Catholic Church.46 It was here (or on his way here) that Hubmaier wrote he Theses Against Eck. Dr. Eck, Hubmaier’s former teacher, according to Moore, “was not perhaps Germany’s leading theological defender of popes and ecclesiastical custom. He had written bitter denunciations of reformers in Germany and Switzerland and once or twice the name of Hubmaier appears in his attacks.”47 This document consisted of 26 theological statements with Scriptural references, leaving absolutely no mistaking where Hubmaier’s theology had landed.

The political climate was growing red-hot. A few of Hubmaier’s letters have been published, but what may be his most famous work, On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them, ignited a flame and eventually Waldshut came under Catholic attack. Zurich unofficially sent by way of a band of armed citizens.48 On Heretics and Those Who Burn Them is a statement of 36 articles in favor of the free will of belief and an attack against those who burn those with opposing views. Article 1 opens with the delectation, “Heretics are those who wantonly resist the Holy Scripture,” and concludes with, “Now it appears to anyone, even to a blind person, that the law [which provides] for burning of heretics is an invention of the devil. Truth is Unkillable.”49 The argument between these two bookends used Scripture throughout, once again demonstrating his strong reliance upon and reverence for the truth of Scripture. The political and military pressure against Hubmaier ebbed and flowed for a while, at times being fierce, at other times Hubmaier preached to Swiss soldiers after Waldshut peaceably opened their gates to them.50 Both the Catholic and Zwingli’s men hunted Hubmaier. During this time, a small band of men formed the first Anabaptist congregation and were expelled from Zurich. Also in this time, Hubmaier grew more vocal and declared his view that children should not be baptized and that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper should be conducted biblically.51 He renounced the idea that Catholic priests were an intermediary between man and God and should remain celibate. On January 13, 1525, he married Elsbeth Hugline.8 A week before Easter, Wilhem Reublin baptized sixty people—Hubmaier was among them. The following day, Hubmaier baptized many others, and through the Easter season, he claimed to have baptized 300 people.53

After Waldshut fell to the Catholics, Hubmaier, weekend by illness, escaped into the country but was eventually captured by Zwingli. For four months, he was detained in the Zurich city hall, still sick and frail. Zwingli had given an execution order for many Anabaptist which included Grebel, Mantz, Blaurock, Aberli, and Hubmaier.54 Archduke Ferdinand requested to extradite Hubmaier, causing Hubmaier to believe the only way he would survive, even if he remained in the Zurich jail, was to recant. In his infirmity, he wrote a statement of recantation; however, it was not enough for the local authorities. They desired that publicly read his recantation in the churches of Zurich in an effort to humiliate the Anabaptists. The first church was to be the Fraumunster. Moore tells the story,

After Zwingli had preached, Hubmaier was called upon to read his recantation. Just before the service, it seems, he had learned about imperial representatives being in the city. He evidently decided that Zurich now intended to turn him over to the Austrians and that no recantation would save him. He hurriedly wrote down some notes on a scrap of paper for his own sincere defense of the freedom of faith. Later he said this was intended for the use in his defense before the Austrians in case he were handed over to them. A surge of moral strength welled up within him, however, as he rose to read the recantation. He sued the hastily scribbled notes rather than the carefully worded recantation in making his statement to the congregation.55

Hubmaier bodily stated that he would not and could not recant and then proceeded to defend his belief of adult baptism. He was immediately carted off to jail where he was tortured until he stated that the devil inspired his statements and that his fellow Anabaptists were heretics.

For three more months, Hubmaier was kept in a wet cell in what was called the Water Tower. Poor treatment and torture were continued as punishment. Somehow, Hubmaier managed to write a short confession called the Twelve Articles of the Christian Faith, which was published the subsequent year. He also wrote a number of other short works from the Wellenberg prison. At the same time, Grebel, Mantz, Blaurock, and other Anabaptist were being held in a new prison named the Heretics Tower. With Zwingli’s blessing, the local authorities issued an order that anyone known to have rebaptized another person would be killed by drowning. Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock were sentenced to life in prison; however, shortly after sentencing the entire group escaped. Hubmaier, not having been with the others, again offered to recant. Wanting to use this against the Anabaptist, Hubmaier was again transported to three churches were he read his insecure statement of recantation. Knowing his statement was a ruse, Zwingli and the authorities placed Hubmaier under heavy guard. Somehow, he was still able to escape and he and his wife made their way to Constance. Some time later, he left for Moravia. All the while, he continued to write and from Moravia published a substantial amount of work for such a short period.56

Dying for His Beliefs. Hubmaier’s time in Moravia allowed him the opportunity to work though and publish his theological ideas. While he was likely considered among the Swiss Brethren, some of his work put a wedge between himself and the others, mainly, his position on against pacifism outlined in Concerning the Sword. However, this time for writing, preaching, and reflection would end when Archduke Ferdinand was crowned king of Bohemia in 1527, just three years after Hubmaier’s baptism. Ferdinand appointed Johann Faber, Hubmaier’s former fellow student and friend, as the persecutor of heretics. The Hubmaiers were taken under custody on a charge of insurrection. The couple was taken to the Kreuzenstein Castle and the charge of heresy was added. By the end of that year, Faber began days of hearing. Fearful of the results of his previous interrogations and charges, Hubmaier was careful how he responded, at first holding true to his beliefs but constructing his statements in less than controversial ways. Eventually he had to take his stand on Scripture, offering a negative statement on purgatory and the intercession of the saints. Neither did his lack of support for any Catholic tenants did not help his case. But none of that would matter given the wide and bold scope of his writing. Hubmaier pleaded for the opportunity to support his positions with Scripture before an open council but his requests never reached Ferdinand. When ordered to write a statement of recantation, he instead wrote a confession of guilt to aiding the peasants at Waldshut. He also included his confession of beliefs but in no way called them heretical. His statement was read publicly and Faber had them published. On March 10, 1528, “without complaint, courageous at the end,” Balthasar Hubmaier was burned at the stake.57 Three days later, Elsbeth Hubmaier had a stone tied to her and she was thrown into the Danube River.58

Dean Stephanus Sprugel of the University of Vienna recorded that on the stake, Hubmaier cried out, “O gracious God, in this my great torment, forgive my sins. O Father, I give you thanks that you will today take me out of this vale of tears. I desire to die rejoicing, and come to you. O Lamb, O Lamb, take away the sins of the world. O God, into your hands I commit my spirit.”59 Again, only this time in Latin, he declared, “O Lord, into your hands I commit my spirit.”60 He shouted to the onlookers, “O dear brothers and sisters, if I have injured anyone, in word or deed, may they forgive me for the sake of my merciful God. I forgive all those who have harmed me.”61 Before the smoke overtook him, Hubmaier’s last words were, “O Jesus, Jesus!”62

HUBMAIER’S THEOLOGY
After reading much of Hubmaier’s work, it is clear that most evangelicals and all Baptists are closely connected to the theology held by the Anabaptist theologian. His writing could easily be picked up today and look like a theological survey of the modern evangelical church. For example, in answering the question, “‘What, or how much at least, must I know if I desire to be baptized?’” Hubmaier responds, “This, and this much, you must know from the Word of God before you let yourself be baptized: That you confess yourself a miserable sinner and guilty, that you also believe the forgiveness of your sins through Jesus Christ, and that give yourself into a new life with the firm resolution to improve your life and to order it according to the will of Christ, in the power of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”63 Although many Anabaptists were killed for this belief, this is not much of a stretch for evangelical churches today. In fact, A Form for Water Baptism outlines a set of questions that should be asked of a potential recipient of baptism. It is essentially a multi-question form of the Apostles’ Creed followed by a personal question of confession. This form could be used today without any realization that Hubmaier penned it in 1527.

In the simplest of summation, Hubmaier agreed with Luther in that salvation comes by faith alone and Scripture alone is the final authority: Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. They agreed that Scripture should be taught and read in the language of the people and the common person should have access to the Word of God for himself or herself. Hubmaier rejected the authority of the pope, and elevation of the priest between God and man, mandatory celibacy, the intersession of the saints, and purgatory—to include the penitence works—pilgrimages, relics, festivals, and indulgences. This however, is where the agreement with Luther ended. Hubmaier came to understand the Lord’s Supper as an instructed symbolic memorial act and a communion of the believers rather than a sacrament that somehow brought about salvation. And that is where he left Calvin and Zwingli. Hubmaier further believed that the Church is made up of believers only, who upon credo baptism find entry. Therefore, he rejected infant baptism, meaning he also rejected the union of church and state as it existed in his day. Man is gifted with an aspect of free will, according to Hubmaier, belief and consentience cannot be forced. That being said, man cannot hold the title of Christian simply by being born to Christian parents in a Christian geographical area. This is where agreement between Hubmaier and the Brethren end. Unlike the Brethren and the stream of theology that came be rest on the Anabaptist movement, Hubmaier was not a pacifist. His work, On the Sword laid out a biblical position away from pacifism, and because of this, many modern Anabaptists do not claim Hubmaier as a theological forefather. And finally, this is where Hubmaier and modern evangelicals end. The doctrine held by Hubmaier that is rejected by evangelicals today was his view of Mary. Hubmaier held that Mary remained the “perpetually pure and chaste Virgin.”64

Much can be discussed about Hubmaier’s theology, except his ideas will appear as common place because they are so close to those of orthodox evangelical Christianity today. However, Hubmaier was among the minority in his day. He was seen as a heretic and even died at the hands of other Protestants for views recognized as common today. But this does not mean that his theology should be neglected. Every evangelical student of the Bible should have the complete works of Balthasar Hubmaier on the shelf next to his or her other systematic theology books.65 Understanding the theology of Hubmaier is extremely insightful in understanding the roots of many theological doctrines today.

HUBMAIER’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE REFORMATION
Balthasar did not ring the bell of Reformation as Martin Luther did in Wittenberg. He has not gained the popularity of John Calvin. And Hubmaier was not a lone, superstar reformer like the three most revered—Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. So one might ask what his contribution to the Reformation was. In short, Hubmaier was the theologian and writer of the radical reformation stream, the stream that came to be known as the Anabaptists. On Hubmaier, Friedmann writes,

It is clear that besides Balthasar Hubmaier (d. 1528), who was a doctor of theology (from a Catholic university), there were no trained theologians in the broad array of Anabaptist writers and witnesses. Hubmaier was a special type, greatly esteemed by Christian radicals by not really emulated and followed after. Many of his theological ideas crept into Anabaptist thinking, such as, for instance, his doctrine of the freedom of will, or his teaching concerning the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.66

More significantly, the Anabaptist theology—with the exception of pacifism—gave birth to the idea that the church must be free of governmental control and manipulation, is comprised of believers only through baptism by confession, and that the Lord’s Supper is not a sacramental guarantee of God’s grace. With Hubmaier at the beginning, the idea that magisterial church-government leadership is not the biblical picture for the Church. Each person has the free will to believe how he or she will; therefore, the government cannot force belief or membership into any specific church. If it is not obvious, Hubmaier’s contribution to the Reformation was the significant second part of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli’s work. Had it not been for the Anabaptists, there is a possibility that the Church today would look much like the Catholic church of the sixteenth century, only baring the name of Luther or Calvin. If not for Hubmaier, the ideas may not have been work through so thoroughly, and they certainly would not have been published and preserved for the Church today. Today’s evangelical church has much for which to thank Hubmaier.

CONCLUSION
While Balthasar Hubmaier is not as popular as other Reformers, he is as significant, if not more so. As a protestant killed at the hands of other protestants, martyred for his faith, his is an fascinating part of Christian Church history. Today, evangelicals stand upon his shoulders and see higher and farther, whether they realize it or not. And they stand more in line, more united, with his theological contribution than any other Reformer. Therefore, it is important that Hubmaier not be forgotten, that his books not become merely dust on a lonely shelf of empty libraries. It is the hope of this blogger, that this post has generated a greater interest in Hubmaier and his work so that the reader will seek out additional works about Hubmaier as well as his original writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Estep, William R. Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533): A Source Book. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976.
Friedmann, Robert. The Theology of Anabaptism; An Interpretation. Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite history, no. 15. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1973.
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Reformation to the Present Day. San Francisco, Calf: Harper & Row, 1984.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Ore: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Hubmaier, Balthasar, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder. Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989.
Moore, John Allen. Anabaptist Portraits. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1984.
Packull, Werner O. "Balthasar Hubmaier's gift to John Eck, July 18, 1516." Mennonite Quarterly Review 63, no. 4: 428-432. 1989. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010).
Potter, G. R. "Anabaptist Extraordinary Balthasar Hubmaier, 1480-1528." History Today 26, no. 6 (June 1976): 377-384. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 5, 2010).
Verduin, Leonard. The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. The Dissent and Nonconformity Series, 14. Paris, Ark: Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc, 2000.

 Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 579.
2  Ewell, 579.
3  Ewell, 579.
4  Ewell, 579.
 Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: Reformation to the Present Day (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 6.
6  González, 10.
 Edward E. Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 443-446.
8  González, 10.
9  González, 10.
10  Ewell, 995.
11   González, 53-57.
12  González, 53.
13  González, 53-54.
14  González, 54.
15   Daniel Liechty, Early Anabaptist Spirituality: Selected Writings, The Classics of Western spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1994) 4.
16   González, 53-59.
17  William R. Estep, Anabaptist Beginnings (1523-1533): A Source Book (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1976), 3.
18   David Funk, "The relation of church and state in the thought of Balthasar Hubmaier." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 17, no. 2 (December 1, 2006): 37-50. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010), 37.
19   Elwell, 579.
20  John Allen Moore, Anabaptist Portraits (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1984), 165-166.
21  Moore, 166.
22  Moore, 166.
23  Moore, 166.
24   Moore, 166.
25  Moore, 165-166.
26  Werner O. Packull, "Balthasar Hubmaier's gift to John Eck, July 18, 1516," Mennonite Quarterly Review 63, no. 4: 428-432. 1989 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 7, 2010), 428.
27  Moore, 166-167.
28  Moore, 168.
29  Moore, 168-169.
30  Moore, 170.
31  Moore, 170.
32  Moore, 170.
33  Moore, 171.
34  Moore, 172.
35  Moore, 172.
36  Moore, 173-174.
37   Moore, 173.
38  Leondard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, The Dissent and Nonconformity Series, 14 (Paris, Ark: Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc, 2000), 200.
39  Balthasar Hubmaier, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989, 22.
40  Hubmaier, 23.
41  G. R. Potter, "Anabaptist Extraordinary Balthasar Hubmaier, 1480-1528." History Today 26, no. 6 (June 1976): 377-384. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed September 5, 2010), 382.
42   Potter, 382.
43  Hubmaier, 34.
44  Potter, 382.
45  Potter, 382-383.
46   Moore, 178-184.
47  Moore, 186.
48  Moore, 187-189.
49  Hubmaier, 59 & 66.
50   Moore, 189-195.
51  Moore, 194.
52  Moore, 194.
53  Moore, 196.
54  Moore, 205.
55   Moore, 207.
56  Moore, 205-234.
57   Moore, 240.
58  Moore, 234-241.
59  Moore, 240-241.
60  Moore, 241.
61  Moore, 241.
62  Moore, 241.
63   Hubmaier, 120-121.
64  Hubmaier, 430.
65  This blogger recommends Balthasar Hubmaier, H. Wayne Pipkin, and John Howard Yoder, Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism. Classics of the radical Reformation, 5. Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1989.
66   Robert Friedmann, The Theology of Anabaptism; An Interpretation, Studies in Anabaptist and Mennonite history, no. 15 (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1973), 19.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
** The illistration of Balthasar Hubmaier by Christoffel van Sichem is in the public domain.

Film: Unveiling Grace


Over the course of an hour, eight people share their testimonies of how they came to know Jesus Christ. Previously they were all LDS, but as they began to study the Bible and ask questions in an effort to seek the Truth of God, something changed in them.  Most of them set out to prove the truth of Mormonism but found themselves following truth in an unexpected direction.

As these eight share their personal testimonies, there is no doubt that Mormons may find some of the statements offensive; but not because the statements are intended to be offensive.  Instead, it will likely be because it's a normal part of human nature to take offense at statements that disagree with how we live our lives.  Think about the initial reaction of the sinner (which is all of us) his or her beloved actions are defined as sin.  Think about the first reaction to the idea of submission to something other than ourselves.  However, if we are honest about seeking out what is true, then we must be willing to go where that journey will lead us, regardless of where we have been.

I don't suspect that many members of the LDS faith will watch this video to its conclusion, which is no different than Christians being unwilling to read (or watch) LDS material.  But if one is honest about knowing the Truth of God, than there should be no fear in engaging in material from other faith groups and beliefs.  If a belief is true and of God, than it should have little trouble standing up against false claims.

I have tremendous respect for anyone who honestly and earnestly is seeking to find the Truth of God. And I'm happy to join in this journey with you.  Please don't hesitate to contact me.

Church Government

Which form of church government appears to have the most warrant from a biblical perspective?

It is rather difficult to find clear support for one form of church government over another in the Bible, mostly because the authors and original readers were already in that government. A governmental system was assumed and did not need explaining. We only see glimpses of how it was done. On the other hand, we do see qualifications for elders and deacons. This does not clearly lay out the structure of either offce, but it does clearly tell us the type of people (or men) they should be. We also see the expected duties of the deacons in Acts when the selection of deacons was being made.

While some will disagree, Jesus did not appoint one leader over the Church—he set a plurality of leaders. His appointed twelve did have members that seemed more influential, but in the mater of the Church, they were equals. In Galatians, Paul is able to rebuke Peter, which would not seem reasonable if Peter was the single appointed archbishop of the Church. Collectively, these men were leaders lead by the Holy Spirit and were appointed for life; and it seems as if this group was able to be added to—accounting for Paul and James. First Timothy 4:14 shows that Paul was sent by a council of elders, suggesting a council rather than a single leader. We also see in James 5:14 that a sick person should call for the elders, plural; and it is unreasonable to think this meant the single pastor/elder in the local church and the single pastor/elder from the next town over.

It is also worth noting that in Acts 15, we see apostles and elders and the “whole church” making the decision to send Paul and Barnabas to Antioch. And regarding something as is seen in some churches where a bishop or archbishop is somehow more holy, we must remember Hebrews 4:16.

I am of the idea that because God did not clearly outline how a church is to be governed, there is no absolute right or wrong way so long as it is a church submitted under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture, and guided and led by the Holy Spirit. In this regard, Acts and the New Testament seems more descriptive; however, if I were to say which of the three models is the most “biblical” I lean, only slightly, more toward presbyterian than congregationalism and lastly episcopal (although in the early church went quickly to this model or always was this model which should be taken into consideration).

___
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.