Review: This Little Piggy

This Little Piggy
This Little Piggy by Parragon
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This short story provides scathing social commentary on the differences of economic opportunity and income inequality that divide us today (some piggies can afford to go to market and get roast beef; other piggies stay home and have none). The fact that the pig eats roast beef – another farm animal – is a hyperbolic expression of the ruthless lifestyle of the upper class piggy. The brilliant cry of the final piggy (“wee wee wee”) symbolizes the outcry that will undoubtedly spawn a revolution as piggies deny the selfish ‘I’ and embrace the collective ‘we’. The final twist of this finger puppet book is that by allowing the child to use his or her finger to animate the piggy, the child can visualize the metaphorical representation of his or her inner self, and instead of objectifying each piggy as a disparate finger, as in the classic telling, the child can internalize that each piggy is truly the same piggy, as any individual may find himself the “market” piggy or the “home” piggy at different stages of life, and every individual piggy is also part of the same “piggy humanity” that binds us all together. Paragon has molded an instant classic that will undoubtedly be studied for centuries hence.

View all my reviews

About these ads

Review: Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic

Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic
Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic by John De Graaf
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Why are we always busy and stressed out despite the huge advances of the last century? The authors convincing detail how productivity and technology increases have left us much richer than our grandparents – but instead of living the same and working less, we acquire an abundance of formerly luxurious (or non-existent) goods without leaving any more time to clean our bigger houses or reorganize, repair, and refill all our stuff. I disagreed with many of the minor points and prognoses that betrayed liberal underpinnings, and it’s a little dated when it talks about shopping malls, but overall Affluenza is a compelling argument that the short-term satisfaction of consumption is ultimately unsatisfying, and the only path to true satisfaction is to embrace voluntary simplicity. It’s largely a secular argument, but it greatly overlaps with a Christian ethos of materialism and possessions.

View all my reviews

Christian books about American materialism and helping the poor

Recently I have been reading several books about Christian theology and how it relates to the modern materialistic American lifestyle and what should be our concern for the poor and needy. Here are my thoughts on three of them.

jesus-of-suburbia-mike-erreJesus of Suburbia: Have We Tamed The Son of God to Fit Our Lifestyle? by Mike Erre (2006) is perhaps the most friendly and accessible. It discusses the revolutionary nature of Jesus’ non-violent Incarnation in the first-century Roman occupation of the Jews, contrasting that with the “safety and security” gospel of the modern American evangelical suburbs. The historical comparisons are similar to points made in  Jesus For President, but without the liberal politics and harsher accusations that may turn off more traditional conservatives.

One of the most interesting parts was when Erre encourages you to stop waiting around for God to directly lead you into something, but instead to just start taking risks doing things to build his kingdom and he will correct you if you’re off-course. He supported this assertion with some Biblical examples, and while I’m not sure if I completely agree with it, I do find it extremely tantalizing.

gods-politics-jim-wallisGod’s Politics: Why The Right Gets It Wrong And The Left Doesn’t Get It by Jim Wallis (2006) is generally less about personal life and more about political policies. Wallis mostly discusses how American politics affects the poor and his opinions about whether the Bible agrees with that or not. As the title might suggest, Wallis often sounds balanced between extremes, and he believes that effectively responding to American poverty requires supporting both government resources (a la the left) and strong families and personal responsibility (a la the right). I liked some of his thoughts, such as interpreting “The poor will be with you always” to mean that Jesus expected his followers to always be found with the poor, even though many suburban evangelical American Christians don’t even know any poor people.

But I’m not sure I followed Wallis in the transition between voluntary giving through local individuals and communities to “forced” giving through the national government, such as his blunt claim that “a budget based on a windfall of benefits for the wealthy and harsh cuts for poor families and children is an unbiblical budget.” Later Wallis actually says, “I often hear people say that the Bible talks about individual charity and has nothing to say about government policies on budgets and tax cuts,” but then he doesn’t really counter that point. I’m still struggling to figure out how much Israel’s mandates should directly apply to modern, non-theocratic governments.

 ron-sider-rich-christiansRich Christians In An Age of Hunger: Moving From Affluence to Generosity by Ron Sider (2005, revised) is perhaps the most famous of these three, and it balances smartly between politics and personal challenges. I liked Sider’s admission that he has learned more about economics since he first wrote the book and his recognition that markets have done much to reduce world poverty in the last couple decades. However I found it equally important to recognize Sider’s points that such progress is limited and has plenty of risks and stagnation therein.  I thought his most provoking claim was that Paul’s writings about hunger and communion suggest that we cannot truly partake in communion while we are full and yet have starving Christian brothers and sisters around the world. Sider’s book has a lot of facts and figures, some of which are missing more context than others, but it also has a lot of practical thoughts and convictions. Of all three of these books I think I would recommend this the most if you are interested in these topics.

Fight: A Christian Case For Non-Violence by Preston Sprinkle

preston-sprinkle-fight I think my journey towards Christian non-violence began as I realized how much the Jewish people of Jesus’ time were expecting their Messiah to overthrow the Roman Empire and how shocked they were when he instead let them crucify him and told his followers to “love your enemies” to advance his heavenly Kingdom. I realized this made it hard to justify talk of overthrowing (relatively less oppressive) modern governments, and I started wondering how many other violent scenarios it might affect, too.

In Fight: A Christian Case For Nonviolence, Preston Sprinkle examines how Jesus’ message of non-violent, forgiving enemy-love is woven through the entire Bible, from God’s gracious protection of Cain the first murderer to the blood of the martyred saints in Revelation. Sprinkle builds his case with astonishing grace and humility (how many authors ask God to “raise up someone” to “write a response” if they’re wrong?), no doubt helped by the fact that he comes not from a liberal hippy protest but from a gun-toting, Gladiator-watching, Republican-voting evangelical background. Sprinkle addresses the most violent passages in the Bible and argues that they fit within a cohesive trend of limiting present violence and longing for a peaceful future.

He also both asks and answers hard questions about the implications of the Bible’s passages on our lives today. I like his point that we often jump into practical scenarios that might justify violence with human logic (sometimes doused in subtle utilitarianism) instead of starting with what the Bible says. Sprinkle argues that many uses of violence are not even effective, but more importantly they may not be faithful to following Jesus. He also contrasts passive “pacifism” with “non-violence,” which still allows are plenty of creative (and Biblical) ways to actively resist evil – just without trying to kill human beings in the process.

Some points are stronger than others. In discussing the violent Promised Land conquest, he convincingly argues that the condemned Canaanites could have known about the God of Israel, responding perhaps to arguments in books like Laying Down The Sword (my review here). But I’m not sure “hyperbole” is the only explanation to avoid contradiction in God’s commands to slay everything that breathes. I love the concept of the prophets pointing towards a future without violence (“they shall beat their swords into plowshares” – Isaiah 2), but I wish he had also covered Joel’s “beat your plowshares into swords.” I also love the idea of all the blood in Revelation belonging to Jesus and the saints, but I’m not convinced of the non-violence of Armageddon (even if Jesus just “declares with cosmic, cruciform authority that He has already won,” there’s still weird parts, where, say, “the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.”)

But difficult interpretations of confusing Bible verses notwithstanding, I found Sprinkle rather convincing in his overall argument that Jesus consistently* preached and lived a non-violent life, that the disciples understood Jesus’ example as compelling a non-violent life (1 Peter 2, for one), and that the early church consistently believed and lived it as well, all while experiencing more intense persecution and justifications for violent retaliation than most of us may ever know! It was in fact this radical “enemy-love” that set Christians apart and led to such a wonderful spreading of the Gospel! The book only delves a little into post-Constantine politics; it’s uncomfortable (but necessary) to think about the civilian deaths and dictator-support at the hand of the “good guys” of America through the years, but I find it even more uncomfortable to think about all the wars throughout history that have literally involved thousands of Christians killing each other.
(*Though I wish he would have covered Matthew 10:34)

I thought Sprinkle had some great arguments about infamous scenarios (“What if someone breaks into your house?” / “What about Hitler?”), mostly related to assumptions about exactly what they’re going to do and exactly how effective you will be at stopping it and the possibilities of things backfiring and violence begetting worse violence (though I find it hard to say the Holocaust could have been stopped non-violently). He offers historical examples of non-violent resistance being more effective (both in preventing violence and in spreading the Gospel) while reminding us that we should ultimately be concerned about what is more faithful anyway. The topic of rape is a potential weak point, addressed only in an intense story about a woman who forgave her attacker who ultimately found Christ. I saw Sprinkle humbly admit in person at AudioFeed that it was very difficult, especially as a man, to advocate non-violence in such situations, but it doesn’t come across as strongly in the book, and of all the ways people could mis-interpret Sprinkle as arguing for passive-ism I really hope they don’t do so in this case. (And I hope everyone could at least agree we should press on towards the goal of enabling women to escape rapists without having to kill them.)

Overall I found Fight to be an “easy read” on a difficult issue, full of interesting, thought-provoking, and challenging ideas. I’m probably part of that rare subset of readers who would have enjoyed the “five hundred pages of endnotes” Sprinkle left out, and I realize there wasn’t enough room to discuss every possible interpretation of every verse that is remotely related to violence. How Christians respond to violence has an immense impact on how we are perceived by the world and how we honor and glorify God, and I am glad Sprinkle is contributing to the discussion in such a gracious and humble manner. If you’re interested in a Biblically sound introduction to the idea of Christian non-violence without the naive, arrogant, or anti-patriotic associations you may have about it, I strongly encourage you to read this book.

Laying Down the Sword by Philip Jenkins (Review)

laying-down-the-sword-jenkins I checked out Laying Down the Sword from the library because it looked like it was about Christianity and violence and I was getting ready to read Preston Sprinkle’s new book on a similar theme. Philip Jenkins writes from a secular academic perspective that sees Christianity and Islam as religions with equally violent texts that are equally capable of more peaceful interpretations.

Needless to say I disagreed with Jenkins on much of his characterizations of Christianity and the Old Testament passages he repeatedly scathes. It is true that the “utter destruction” of the Canaanites in the book of Joshua seems extremely violent and evil, and that this and other similar passages are often difficult to accept. However, I think Jenkins’ lack of understanding regarding the doctrines of both sin and redemption inhibited his reaction to some of the traditional explanations of such passages. Perhaps it was because Jenkins was focused on the human element involved in carrying out these Biblical killings, but I found it interesting that he completely ignored the story of Noah’s Flood; if we can accept God’s treatment of the sins of an entire planet, surely the sins of a few villages are not difficult in comparison. Nor do I see God’s wrath and love as incompatible qualities, and I find it amusingly arrogant when he talks about man applying his limited reason to try to “improve” on such things.

I must concede that Christians throughout history have misused these Old Testament passages to justify violence on other races; the quotes and examples of the flexible interpretation of “Amalekites” over the centuries are quite damning – even heartbreaking – and it is hard to argue that they behaved any better than today’s radical Muslims. Still, at least from my bias, Jenkins tried too hard to equivocate the two religions to fit his hypothesis;  he bends over backwards to explain creative “escape routes” for some of the violent Qur’an passages while almost flippantly using Jesus’ words about jots or tittles “passing away” to restrict similar treatment of the Old Testament – as if the very text of the Bible doesn’t wrestle with the post-resurrectional meanings of the old Law (see: Acts 15, or the entire book of Hebrews). He also didn’t cover the treatment of women; the allegedly patriarchal Bible verses about submission surely pale in comparison to the Qur’an’s explicit approval of wife-beating. But I digress.

I agree with Jenkins’ conclusion that “the fact that a minority of activists derive harsh and violent ideas from the scriptures of Judaism, or any other faith, has no implications whatever for evaluating that religion, or the texts on which it is based.” Yet I disagree with his belief that these passages still illustrate a problem that need to be allegorized away (a method that Jenkins curiously seems to deride some Christians for using before seeming to arrive at the same conclusion himself).

I like Sprinkle’s position (I haven’t read his book yet, but I heard his talk on it at AudioFeed) that the Bible’s violent passages were no worse and probably even less violent than the cultures of the day, and furthermore that the Bible continually trends toward peace, culminating in the “love your enemies” message of Jesus Christ. Jenkins acknowledges but rejects this view, saying the forward-looking peaceful prophets were written at the same time period as the recording of the violent historical Joshua passages. But of course that’s only a problem if you believe the “higher criticisms”; even if they were later recordings of much earlier events, in my view the trend towards peace remains.

Jenkins also claims that the genocidal quality of Joshua’s destruction was unprecedented even for its time; I don’t know history well enough to say whether or not he’s cherry-picking. I do know he ignored any of the myriad references to God limiting Israel’s military strength – from the general ban on chariots to the reduction of Gideon’s forces to Jehoshaphat’s army that was told not to fight (2 Chronicles 20). This doesn’t make the armies’ violent actions less violent, but it does shed more light on the emphasis throughout.

I also was surprised that Jenkins saw the conquest of Canaan as genocidal in nature; I had always interpreted it as more about stamping out other religions than other races - the evidence being the numerous “exceptions” made to those of other races who honored Yahweh, from the story of Rahab to the verses in the Torah about good treatment of the “aliens” among them.

So I found a lot to disagree with, but it was also good to read things from another perspective, and especially to learn about many of the genocidal tragedies that have been carried out in God’s name over the ages. I agree that more Christians should read and become familiar with these sorts of passages, to wrestle with them and to greater appreciate the overall arching Biblical themes of sin, justice, redemption, and – yes – peace.

Money, Greed, and God by Jay W. Richards (Review)

money-greed-god-richardsMoney, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is The Solution And Not The Problem by Jay W. Richards is a Christian defense of capitalism and the general Austrian/free-market worldview. It is partially a response to some of the more “liberal” Christian voices of recent years that have criticized American affluence and called for social justice, shunning materialism and globalization, and helping the poor (sometimes through government programs funded sometimes by taxing the rich).

Richards does not deny that Christians should care about the poor, but points out that to alleviate poverty we must not merely at good intentions but at what works, and he argues that what works is improving economic and political systems and promote property rights, the rule of law, and free trade. He corrects many widespread myths, like the idea that wealth is a zero-sum game.

I tend to agree with Richards economically. I like the idea that man can create wealth because he is made in the image of God the Creator, which enables and maybe even compels him to invent and innovate and improve the world around him. I like the idea that man (and his initiative) is the ultimate “natural resource” that we will never run out of. I like his defense of banking and differentiation between hoarding and investing.

However, while Richards dutifully corrects many Christians who present far too dismal a view of capitalism, like many other ideological free-marketers I think he may present too rosy a view. It may be true that capitalism doesn’t necessarily include the greed and deception and materialism that is often associated with it, but it is also true that those things seem to come with capitalism wherever it arrives. I agree that those vices would be even worse under socialism, but that’s almost a straw man, since many anti-capitalists don’t want to revert to pure socialism but merely control capitalism’s “excesses” with smart limits and regulations; there are plenty of arguments for and against that, but Richards mostly maintains a bird’s eye pure capitalism/socialism dichotomy, and we don’t really get a sense for where he falls on the practical real-world continuum (like, say, what about government investment in transportation infrastructure or other potential public goods as a way to help the poor?).

Additionally, while I believe Richards offers useful correction and critique of the effectiveness of alleviating poverty through government programs, I’m not sure I’m convinced of the fundamental assumption shared by both he and his opponents that God’s commands to help the poor actually involves alleviating their poverty (and we just have to figure out the best way to do that). Surely Jesus could have helped far more people escape poverty if he had helped overthrow the Roman Empire like the Jews thought he would to establish either (in the view of folks like Richards, or perhaps me) a capitalistic utopia or (in the view of folks like Jim Wallis) a tax-the-rich-to-feed-the-poor progressive utopia. But even when Jesus told the rich man to sell all his possessions and give to the poor, did he actually seem to care about the poor “escaping poverty,” or was he more concerned about the spiritual state of both the poor and the rich? This is a paradigm that goes beyond books like this one, and it’s something that requires more research, thought, and prayer. But this book is a good stop on the way to developing that paradigm, and it responds to and references many other books that I’m looking forward to reading as well.

Countdown to the Apocalpyse by Grant R. Jeffrey

jreffrey-countdown-apocalypse My grandmother gave me the book Countdown to the Apocalypse by Grant R. Jeffrey. I consider myself pretty familiar with end times stuff, and I have to admit I came it from a bias of wondering how much of it was wrong and whether it already looked dated in 2013 from being published in 2008. I tend to be skeptical of those who think they personally understand the world well enough to super-confidently predict its future, whether it’s climate scientists predicting temperature increases, financial gurus predicting economic collapses, or eschatological scholars predicting the end of the world (as they’ve been doing since at least Christ’s ascension).

This book focuses on the prophecies of Daniel, exploring pretty traditional, well-worn ground about what those prophecies said about the historical Roman and Babylonian and other empires (which is actually pretty cool), as well as what those prophecies say about the future (which is also pretty interesting), and of course how current events supposedly tie into it (which is… not that great).

Jeffrey speaks repeatedly about his confidence that eschatological things (i.e. Rapture, Tribulation, Anti-Christ, Millennial Kingdom, etc, etc) will happen “in our lifetimes,” mainly because Israel became a nation again in 1948. He finally gets around to sort of explaining that he believes these things will happen soon because of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place,” which apparently means that the generation that saw Israel reborn will also see all the eschatological things, even though he doesn’t do much exegetical exercise connecting them. Of course, time is about to tell if Jeffrey will join the long line of over-confident end-times predictors, especially as it’s starting to become pretty stretchy to connect today to the generation of 1948 – it had already been 60 years when the book was published and now we’re going on 65.

Like many other books of generations past, the book tries to interpret current events through the lens of the coming apocalypse. Some of it’s standard stuff, like the rise of the cashless society paving the way for the mark of the beast. There’s some interesting stuff about a relatively new dam that can supposedly cut off the Euphrates, which is supposed to be tied to a prophecy somewhere, and some bizarre stuff about nations supposedly having genetic weapons to destroy enemies of different races at Armageddon (as if nations are still completely homogenous?).

But the book looks most irrelevant when it talks about Europe, which is supposed to be the base of a revived Roman Empire that springs the Anti-Christ or something. Eschatologists have been pointing to the European Union as a sign of the end times since it began, but this book had the unfortunate timing of pre-empting the financial collapse of 2007-2008 and the destabilization of European countries in the years that followed. Statements about the euro’s recent rise relative to the dollar and its increasing status as a reserve currency look almost foolish five years later. At this very moment Greece doesn’t seem quite as likely to leave the euro as it did about a year ago, but the breakup of the zone still seems more likely to me than increased continental sovereignty. Of course, a collapsed zone could still lead to a more united rebirth just like the secret talks Jeffrey alleges to in his book, but that just means that any scenario in Europe could eventually lead to the things Jeffrey believes will happen, which makes it useless to try to interpret current events as leading to it or not.

Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle

erasing-hell-chan-sprinkleI purchased Erasing Hell at AudioFeed Festival because I heard Preston Sprinkle speaking and I really liked the humble way he approached the topic; it was only later that I realized this was the same book by Francis Chan that my friend Sam had recommended I read as a response to Rob Bell’s Love Wins (which I blogged too many words about starting here).

This book also explores what the Bible says about hell, and it’s an almost-rebuttal to the almost-universalism of Bell’s book (while many other writers are also quoted, Bell gets the most attention by far). It’s a fairly small book, and there are really only a few key theological and historical points that it adds to the discussion, although they are pretty big ones.

For example, Bell argues that the word Jesus used for hell (gehenna) really referred to the town garbage dump as part of his overall questioning of the traditional conception of a literal afterlife hell. Chan and Sprinkle argue that this doesn’t make sense in the context of all of the times Jesus used the word, that it doesn’t make sense the way other Jewish writers of the era used the word, and (here’s the kicker) that there is no archaeological evidence that there was ever a town garbage dump and the entire idea for that came from a commentary a thousand years later from the Middle Ages!

The book also looked at other ancient documents and tried to paint a picture of the first century Jewish beliefs about hell, arguing that Jesus blatantly challenged many other Jewish paradigms about things like divorce or wealth or the Sabbath but didn’t really say anything to challenge the existing paradigms about hell involving torture and eternity but in fact said things that seemed to pretty much confirm them. At the same time, the book acknowledges the ambiguity of many verses with a lot of grace.

The book is also deeply baked with a humble attitude of “Man, if this stuff is true, it’s heavy stuff that should seriously affect our lives and interactions with other people!” whereas I felt like Bell’s book was more baked with an attitude of “Man, if this stuff is true, it sure doesn’t sound like good news to me!” Yet I suppose those are both honest, valid reactions and there is room for both in the apparent tension between God’s love and mercy and his justice and sovereignty. Overall, I think you should read both books if you’re interested in getting a balanced view of the main Christian doctrines about hell and the afterlife and the ongoing discussion about it all.

Jesus For President by Shane Claiborne

Jesus For President by Shane ClaiborneLast week I blazed through Jesus For President by Shane Claiborne (and Chris Haw). I had never read anything by Shane up to this point, although I had a vague impression of him residing somewhere in the sorta-liberal counter-cultural not-really-Super-Patriotic-American neck of the Christian woods. The book covers the political landscape of Jewish history, from Genesis through Jesus, and offers opinions about how modern Christian Americans should think about politics in light of all that.

The book is an easy, pleasant read and overall not too dogmatic or overly opinionated, although parts of it seemed a little sloppy and biased. For example, Shane says the Old Testament temple wasn’t really what God wanted, quoting 2 Samuel 7 where God prevents David from building it to make an anti-imperialist connection: “God likes pitching a tent with the people of struggle… a long way from the center of power.” Of course, the book completely ignores the account in 2 Chronicles where Solomon actually builds the temple and initiates it with an epic prayer that apparently didn’t bother God too much since he responded with fire from heaven and “the glory of the Lord” filling the temple and an equally epic blessing. It’s not that important to the points the book makes, but in context we definitely don’t get the impression that God disliked the temple the way he disliked Israel asking for a king. It’s especially ironic considering that later Shane explains Romans 13′s submission to authority by inviting readers to look at the entire context.

I also disagreed with some of the economic remarks, which include many popular clichés indicative of an unfamiliarity with economic concepts. The books includes a story about a tragic child laborer from a foreign country; while I agree that the worst of globalization is very bad, and that American Christians should be more concerned about the ethics of their manufacturing, it’s also important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Global trade doesn’t have to be exploitative, and if we care about the poor, we need to recognize that it actually is lifting hundreds of millions across the globe out of poverty by simultaneously providing better jobs for foreigners than they would have otherwise and cheaper goods for Americans (not all of whom are rich, either).

Similarly, Shane praises a community that avoided cars “because petroleum supplies are finite and will become.. one of the major sources of conflict this century.” I’m all for reducing oil use and reducing global conflict, but it’s also important to recognize that globalization itself can reduce and has reduced conflict as nations engage in trade that improves all of their lives. The book also lauds people who try to live sustainably off the grid instead of “making money off” other people. Again, a noble goal, but the terminology sounds like the zero-sum fallacy; if you produce goods or services that lots of people want to buy because it’s better or cheaper than something else, you’re not “making money off” them, you’re engaging in mutually beneficial voluntary trade.

But enough of economics.

Most of the political stuff revolved around non-violence, and I actually found it a lot more compelling than I expected. I’ve been trending away from the government war machine for a few years now, but I think this book definitely moved me closer to the “other side.” I’m not ready to say we should have stayed out of World War II, but I’m actually starting to become a little ambivalent about the American Revolution (along with any hushed talk of the need for another one). I liked learning more about the political landscape of first century Israel and being reminded of the political revolution that Jesus explicitly refused to bring – contrary to many expectations!

I am finding it harder to condone the killing of human beings when we’re supposed to be in the business of saving their souls. It’s not just the example of Jesus – “Love your enemies” – but also the example of the early Christians living out that example of Jesus. I love the idea of Christians being known as the ones who love their enemies. The early Christians seemed much more interested in martyring for Christ than fighting (killing?) for religious freedom or the right to bear arms. I’m still musing over Shane’s observation that Christianity seems to be “at its best when it is peculiar, marginalized, suffering” than when it’s “popular, credible, triumphal, and powerful.” Still trying to reconcile that with all the other things I believe.

This means I’m really excited for the new book by Preston Sprinkle, who just happened to be speaking at AudioFeed last weekend about his new book “Fight! A Christian Case For Non-Violence” at the same I was reading this Shane Claiborne book about non-violence. OK, there’s a lot of hippy Cornerstone/AudioFeed roots, so maybe it’s not that coincidental. But unlike Shane (who did write the foreword to Preston’s book), Preston is coming from a conservative, hunting, Marines-and-cops-in-the-family background, and it sounds like he’s not dogmatically trying to defend an existing bias, but instead trying to look as objectively as possible at what the Bible says about violence. I also like his distinction between pacifism (which sounds like “passive…”) and non-violence, clarifying that you can still confront evil without perhaps killing people. I also like his admittance that he doesn’t have all the answers, and that some issues and scenarios are harder than the others. So I’ll probably write about that book when it comes out, too.

Love Wins by Rob Bell: Chapters 7-8

Chapter 7: The Good News Is Better Than That

Here Rob Bell gives some insights into the story of the prodigal son (and his brother), and how God’s version of the story was better than either son’s self-deceived versions of either “his badness is his problem” or “his goodness is to his credit.” Good stuff.

Bell also goes back to the popular but questionable notions of the afterlife where “God would have no choice but to punish them forever in conscious torment in hell.” As I’ve mentioned already, I agree that those notions are wrong, and I think they are misrepresentations even of traditional theology.

But Bell continues to sound not-so-untraditional: “We are free to accept or reject the invitation to new life that God extends to us. Our choice.” So what happened to all the questions at the beginning about people in specific circumstances who maybe don’t get what seems like a fair chance to accept or reject?

Chapter 8: The End Is Here

Bell never really goes back to address those kinds of questions. With two pages to go he concedes that he hasn’t really forgotten about all the judgment sounding passages in the Bible, from the guy who misuses his treasure and is “thrown outside into the darkness” to the wedding guests who are told “I don’t know you” to the weeds that are harvested and “tied in bundles to be burned.” Yes, Bell emphasizes God’s love and grace and corrects many corrupted culturalized views of Christian theology, but even as he suggests that hell might not be a real place, that “all” will be saved, that people might be able to change their minds after death, that Jesus might save people who don’t know he’s saving him… Bell still suggests that people will reject God and choose the judgment of, well, hell.

So where was the controversy again? Is Rob Bell not a “universalist” after all? Or does he still think all that judgment is temporary corrective stuff, even though he didn’t mention it again at the end when he talked about God’s love giving people the freedom to reject it? Is he just asking controversial questions without claiming to provide all the answers? Not that there’s not necessarily a place for that, but the ending just seemed kinda… anti-climactic. Oh well. It’s still a thought-provoking book with a heart for discerning the truth about God and a concern for people who have heard corrupted teachings about it all, both in the church and outside of it. But read at your own risk.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.