LOVE WINS: a review

My beautiful and intelligent wife wrote a review of Love Wins by Rob Bell. I thought is was much better than any review I could write so I thought I would share it with you. Please let me know what you think of the book, and any of the reflections that are shared here. Thanks!


-Billy Kangas

LOVE WINS: A Call to Participate in the Kingdom of Heaven

By Joan Kangas

The book "Love Wins" is, in my view, intentionally controversial, but I think a very interesting read and even IMPORTANT read for opening the conversation about what it means to be Christian. Rob Bell purposely confronts many different denomination's teachings on Heaven and Hell and most importantly, asks the reader to pry into their own understanding of these concepts. For example, this book flies in the face of any church or individual with a calvinistic viewpoint. And yes, it does leave the door open to Universalist belief that all can make it to heaven; with a sticking point that if they do so it is through Jesus Christ- not any random god. This book is a must read though, because it draws the reader away from living with an eschatological purpose only, and draws them to embrace living into the Kingdom of God in the here and now, which I believe is Rob Bell's purpose in writing this book.

Throughout "Love Wins", by discussing contemporary beliefs on heaven and hell, Rob Bell challenges us towards a more compassionate and responsible way of living out our faith, one that is an active seeking of God's will and duty today for ourselves with the concern of the welfare of others before us, as opposed to a individual path or "personal -as in solo" relationship with God.

In his discussion on Heaven, Bell shifts our focus from a distant future to a current reality. My favorite example of this is when he describes the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life. Jesus invites him to give up all his possessions; an immediate way of living into "heaven." He shows that throughout Jesus' teachings, rather than focus on heaven as a separate place we go when we die, it is a reality we begin to live into now. When we look at heaven in this way, it shifts our thinking to become concerned with the sufferings all around us today, rather than simply doing what is right for ourselves, assured that we will receive a personal reward.

In his discussion of Hell, Bell pulls our focus away from a God bent on inflicting punishment and towards our acceptance of living into God's will. Hell being the fruit of the rejection of God. He also introduces the idea of a purification process that may even be painful that enables us to fully live-in to God's will. Finally he suggests that it may be possible to accept God after death, or even after an initial rejection. This is how he opens the door to that universalist idea that everyone may be saved. However, unlike an universalist, he states the very real possibility of a never ending rejection of God and therefore, Hell. He does not specify which of these beliefs a christian must believe and seems to be ambiguous in his own beliefs on that point. The real value in this section is that it shifts our viewpoint of others as people who are or are not definitely going to hell/in hell and draws us once again to a compassionate involvement with the spiritual welfare of others. It refuses to allow us to disregard the sinner/rejected. His book lifts the veil on the view that our spiritual wellness is in a vacuum, unaffected and unconcerned with those around us, and exposes it as fraud.

After talking specifically about Heaven and Hell, Bell strives to show the reality that Jesus desires salvation for everybody. As he puts it Jesus inclusively saves all, exclusively through Himself. This means that no matter what religion (if any) a person belongs to, Jesus died for their sins, and rose so that they may have salvation. The inclusivity is important because it reinforces the call for us to reach and be involved with all people, not simply those who belong to our denomination. It also forces us to recognize the dignity of all people since we must recognize that all people were created for salvation. The exclusivity is important because it recognizes Jesus Christ as our true Savior and demands that we follow Him and cling to Him as our path to salvation-meaning that we will not abandon him for other gods (or our own pleasure) simply because we believe that regardless of what we do we will be saved. Also it still reaffirms the need to spread the Gospel to those who may know Jesus, though not by name.

Finally Rob Bell uses the story of the prodigal son as a lens to show how our understanding of heaven and hell can blur our vision of what God has for us. God welcomes both the prodigal son, and the faithful son to celebrate with Him. Who will accept the invitation?

I think this book is a must read in today's culture and environment of hurt that sees many people leaving the faith, and opens up the conversation to why they are leaving. It addresses the pain that can be caused when the church's focus is on the end, rather than the means. As well as offering an in depth guide to examining our own beliefs and how they affect others, as well as understanding the viewpoints of others and how to start a conversation with them. I highly suggest that everyone read this book from this standpoint, rather than black and white explanations of what heaven and hell will be like. I'll leave you with two of my favorite quotes from the book:

"When the gospel is understood primarily in terms of entrance rather than joyous participation, it can actually serve to cut people off from the explosive, liberating experience of the God who is an endless giving circle of joy and creativity."

"Whatever you've been told about the end- the end of your life, the end of time, the end of the world- Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here, now, today."

Living as a Peacemaker in a World at War

Having a Voice in a Violent World

The movie “Miss Congeniality” (2000) presents the story of Gracie Hart, a FBI agent who goes undercover as a contestant in a beauty pageant in order to protect the contestants from a threat of violence. After learning how to dress, walk and act the part, and after wooing the audience with her amazing “glass harp” playing skills, Gracie finds herself doing quite well in the competition. She then has to answer a few personal questions about who she is and what she values.

Gracie is asked, “What is the one most important thing our society needs?”
She responds, “harsher punishment for parole violators.”
The crowd is silent
Sensing the awkward tension in the room Gracie adds, “And world peace!
The crowd cheers ecstatically

Politicians and polite society

Few would argue that world peace is not a noble goal to hope for, but discussing how to achieve “world peace” isn’t something many people are enthusiastic about discussing. The topic is difficult, and most communities would rather not have the discussion. There are few coffee shops which post their philosophy on international political engagement. I have yet to attend a sporting event where a presentation expounding the underpinning civic expectations of the star spangled banner are presented after the recitation of that celebrated bellicose ballad. When people gather together in communities war is rarely a reason, and seldom a concern. How to handle war, crime, punishment, and the “keeping of the peace” is left to those civil authorities who have been elected or appointed to do so. There is an assumption among polite society that these sorts of things aren’t to be discussed; leave that to the professionals.

Jesus and the Church

In the Gospel of Matthew the story of Jesus is told with a certain care by the author to do some deeply theological things. The sayings of Jesus are collected into five discourses[1] that many scholars think is a way of pointing to Jesus as one who embodies a “new Torah,” and who presents a way to live through which the kingdom of God is epitomized. In the first of these discourses Jesus opens with a list of beatitudes. One of them is, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Similarly, in Luke’s Gospel the first thing that Jesus teaches comes from a quotation from Isaiah 61. This is often called Jesus’ “mission statement” by scholars.[2] In it Jesus states that he has come to do some radically political things like “proclaim freedom for the prisoners” and “set the oppressed free”.

Any reading of the scriptures quickly makes it clear that to be a follower of Jesus means that you need to be involved with addressing a violent world. Affirming that Jesus is the “prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6) means that peace needs to be a primary concern to work for in the brass tacks of day to day life, not just a ideal to desire in the banal simplicity of beauty pageant philosophy. The Church has a unique role in the world. It lives somewhere in between polite society and civil authority. It has a voice, a concern, and a calling in the conversation concerning conflict, but remains distinct from the forces entrusted with the keeping of peace.

How should Christians think about and respond to violence?

Historically the church has recognised its unique voice in the conversation surrounding violence. Out of this concern have developed a number of different responses surrounding how a Christian should respond to living in a violent world, and what the role of the Church is in engaging the violence that surrounds it. There is no consensuses on what is the “best” way to respond to violence, but Christian theology does offer some common ground about violence itself which the Church can build off of.
A Christian Theology of Violence

Violence is something that is antithetical to the message of the Gospel. At the heart of Christianity is the belief that sin, death, and the Devil were defeated by God in the person of Jesus Christ. This was done by Jesus’ assumption of all of our humanity and all of our brokenness. Jesus suffered violence and death at the hands of men, and was raised up by the Father as a final vindication. Through this Jesus broke the power of sin and death over people so that we might live in God’s kingdom of peace. To cling to violence is to cling to a way of living that is contrary to the life that Christ offers those who are joined to him. The Church therefore has a vocation that declares that violence is a force that goes against the heart of God’s way of life. Even when the Church has supported violent resistance to violence it has viewed it as a lesser of two evils that should only be used with repentance and trepidation.

Christian Responses to Violence

In light of the Christian theology of violence people respond in a number of different ways. To examine how each of these perspectives plays out I will offer a controversial contemporary issue to act as lens through which we can view the various responses to violence. I would like to look at how the Church, which commonly views abortion as a terrible act of violence, responds to the rampant practice of abortion in the world today.

Peaceful Prevention

All historic Christian responses to violence affirm that the primary front in addressing violence is in the realm of prevention. No matter where you seek to prevent violence, there is work that can be done so that violence is not an issue that comes up. On a global scale these actions have been discussed in recent years through a set of practices that are thought to prevent war by Glen Harold Stassen in his book “Just Peacemaking.”[3] On the issue of abortion, there are are many views on how to end abortion. The World Health Organization has suggested that family planning initiatives, and education are the key ways forward to prevention.[4] Others have argued that offering social programs, child care, and foster family programs are the some of the best ways toward prevention.[5]The church has been an active participant in many of these efforts, although these efforts have been effective in lowering the number of abortions in many places abortions still occur all around the world. Preventative measures don’t always solve the problem entirely.

Violent Intervention as a Last Resort

If methods of prevention fail and violence has begun how to proceed becomes a very contentious issue. Some argue that if the only way to stop further violence is through violence than violent action should be taken. In matters of war the Catholic Church has developed a way to advise nations to when it is ethically acceptable to go to war. This is presented in “Just War Theory.” Just war theory can have more than one meaning but in all cases is concerned with constricting the valid causes for war, and restraining the actions of war.[6] In the words of my friend Alice, this perspective aims to assure that if a shot is fired, it is “shot accurately.”

A “Just War” response does not fit well into the church’s model for responding to violence in the face of many social issues. The Church is not “authorised”[7] like a government or law enforcement agency to uphold the peace through violent resistance. The proper response to issues of “personal violence”[8] is still hotly debated

In the abortion debate, some who oppose abortion have taken up violent actions in order to stop the violence they see being done to fetuses, believing that they are in a position to judge when violence is called for. For example, in a letter published in a Pensacola newspaper in 1984, a women claims responsibility for an abortion clinic bombing. In it she parallels her actions in the act of violence with the intervention by the United States Government in the violent slaughter of the Jews during World War II.[9] In cases like this the it is possible for the church to feel compelled to act violently still affirm the action is wrong. In light of a larger evil some churches have determined to respond with a lesser evil both in their council to civil authorities, and in some cases through violence themselves.

Non-violent Resistance

There are many groups of Christians who have decided that even if a violent response would be the lesser of two evils, they will not leave violence as an action. This group is generally known as “pacifists.”[10] A non-violent response finds it’s inspiration in the Cross of Christ. Jesus did not overcome evil with evil, but took on the violence of the world to the point of death on the cross. Non-violent resistance is grounded in the belief that Christian response to violence should imitate Christ, both in His non-violent reaction to violence, and in His creative activity. Many churches believe that violence is never a last resort, because they believe in a God of creation, who created creative people, who in tern can create new ways forward. This response to violence always seeks to bring a different language to the conversation.

In the abortion discussion non-violent resistance can be seen in those who keep vigil around clinics quietly praying the rosary, or those who offer masses for the aborted fetuses found in dumpsters.[11] These actions seek to confront the purveyors of violence but to not succumb to the violence themselves.

Continuing the Conversation

Being a follower of Jesus means that we should not be content to let peace be simply a goal simply affirmed, but one that is lived. It seems impossible to create a script for how to respond to violence in every given situations. We live in a world that presents new horrors and disfigurations every day that shatter the peace that we seek. Violence is never a problem with an easy answer.

The church exists to affirm that God’s answer to the problem of violence was the most difficult answer imaginable; while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.[12] Christians have a unique hope; although in the world we can see sin death, and the Devil, we know that those powers have already been defeated. The church’s response to violence must have its foundation in its vocation to partner with God to manifest that reality in every place on earth. This is why I am much more comfortable standing with those who resist with prayer and worship, then those who respond with bombs and bloodshed. I believe that the real hope of the church is in the Holy Spirit that guides it. In Genesis 1 the Spirit hovered over the primordial waters of chaos and created something utterly original. I believe that the church, guided by that same Spirit, can help create new solutions to conquer the chaos of violence in the world today.

[1]Cooke, Richard. New Testament . (London: SCM Press, 2009), 100.
[2]Green, Joel B.. The Gospel of Luke . (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1997),379.
[3]Stassen, Glen Harold. Just peacemaking: the new paradigm for the ethics of peace and war. New ed. (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2008).
[4]Complications of abortion: technical and managerial guidelines for prevention and treatment.. (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1995), 115.
[5]Steiner, Gilbert Y.. The abortion dispute and the American system . (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983), 49.
[6]Cahill, Lisa Sowle. Love your enemies: discipleship, pacifism, and just war theory. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 1-2.
[7]According to Just War Theory
[8]This kind of violence covers a wide rage. Things like domestic abuse, robbery, rape, etc. There are many cases of violence which are not dealt with by a political body.
[9]Condit, Celeste Michelle. Decoding abortion rhetoric: communicating social change. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 218.
[10]These are not hard categories. Augustine, who is the most influential proponent of “Just War Theory” actually believed that PERSONAL violence was always wrong:
Chiba, Shin, and Thomas J. Schoenbaum. Peace movements and pacifism after September 11. (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2008), 78.
[11]For footage from one of these funerals go to http://www.vimeo.com/6526349
[12]Romans 5:8

Song: Calling

Here is one of my songs... It's a rough recording I did today. Let me know what you think.

What is RUTH doing in the BIBLE?

The book of Ruth finds it’s place in the Christian canon of scripture wedged into the Deutoronomic History (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings). It offers a break from the larger framework of Israel history and presents us with a charming story of one seemingly unimportant family in Bethlehem.

Although few would argue that the book of Ruth is not a beautiful story, in the context of the many great things that happen in the Bible, many are left to question “why is such a simple narrative included in the canon of scripture.” At first glance the book of Ruth seems like a simple peasant walking amongst giants. I see at least seven issues that help us understand some of it’s theological implications and why Ruth is in the canon of Holy Scripture:

1. The family of David: Ruth is an ancestor of King David, and ultimately of Jesus. One of the main reasons this story is included is to give some background on David’s family. This piece serves to highlight the positive character of one of David’s most problematic family members. Ruth is a “problem” in the purity of David’s line. She is a gentile. This book shows all who would seek to disqualify the Davidic line that Ruth is not a family member to disdain but to revere.
2. The role of an immigrant: Ruth is a Gentile she comes into Israel as a moabitess, the way she interacts with the people and culture that is new to her  can offers an opportunity to reflect on how to a faithful person in a new context and how to be a faithful community towards immigrants and outsiders.
3. The role of women: Ruth is only one of two women who lend their names to a book of the Bible. It is easily the most female focused book in the canon. Here one women is extolled for her love toward another women, and offers an incredibly important voice of the value and worth of women as individuals.
4. The example of chesed (חסד): The Hebrew word chesed is hard to translate. It is sometimes translated “steadfast love,” “lovingkindess,” “unrelenting love,” or “Covenant faithfulness”. The book of Ruth is an example of a lived Chesed. This is perhaps the chief theological value the book imparts. The word itself occurs three times in the book (1:8; 2:20; 3:10). It shows the chesed of God, of Ruth, and of the community of Love between the women in the story.
5. A contrast to Judges - The book of Judges is filled with tales of violence between the Israelites, the surrounding nations, and even themselves. Each man does what is right in his own eyes. The book of Ruth takes place during the time of the Judges, but in contrast to Judges offers a witness of a women who offers a faithful life of service to others in a quiet town.
6. A view of God for the “everyday” context: Ruth is a story of a simple women; she is not a queen or a ruler; she is not a judge or a general. Ruth is a simple women in a simple context. She does not receive any supernatural words of prophecy, and she does not see any miracles preformed. She lives her life faithfully in a humble context. This gives a biblical face to the theology of everyday faithfulness.
7. It offers a archetype of conversion: The book of Ruth presents us with a story of a convert. Ruth embraces the God of Naomi when she embraces Naomi. It points out powerfully how community and conversion are linked, and the role of others in our relationship to God.

Why did God command such violence against the canaanite peoples?

One of the most common critiques of Christianity and Judaism is the חרם (ḥērem) that is given by God in Numbers 21:2, Joshua 7:12, Deuteronomy 7:2 and 1 Samuel 15:18. This is the instructions to wipe out many of the nations of Canaan, including all women and children. God even says that they are not allowed to take any wealth from the conquest for themselves.

Why did THE LORD impose such a harsh penalty?

It doesn’t seem to make sense. It’s hard to imagine Jesus Saying these words. We are left wondering how we are supposed to take this. I think a number of questions arise in the mind of anyone who seriously thinks about this encounter. Here are a few of the issues that I see this”חרם” raising:

• Does this command give the Church, as the new Israel, the right to make war on people?
• This one is easy, NO! This was a one time thing
• Could God really have said this?
• Some have argued this was not God. It may have been a construction of latter generations to give hope. I’m not comfortable with this, it seems like too easy an out.
• Was this really necessary?

This has been a struggle for people for thousands of years. In the second Century, Marcion looked at this and determined that the God of the Old Testament could not even be the same God. Augustine, too, had trouble and argued that the best way to read this dedication to destruction was allegorically, believing that the real meaning of these passages lay in Christ and this encounter was a kind of typology for a higher perspective. Others have taken the issue and tried to contextualize it. The invasion has been compared to the flood. God wipes out a people who were wicked in the same way he used the waters of the deluge in Geneses. The main difference is now he is using His people instead of water.


But we are still asking WHY?
The Bible itself doesn’t give a clear answer. Deuteronomy 7 seems to indicate that God commands this so that the idols will not become a stumbling block for His people. However scripture indicates the destruction is a result of wickedness of the Canaanites themselves in Genesis 15:16. It has also been argued that this destruction was a way in which God was clearing the land to make space for his promise to the Patriarchs might be fulfilled.

I personally don’t find any of these responses very comforting.

I am left without a good answer. There are a few things that people do point out that I think no matter how we handle this very difficult section of scripture I think it’s imperative to keep in mind.

1. This was set up by God (that means there is more going on then any of us can fully understand)
2. This only happened once (and can’t be sanctioned by ANYONE again)
3. This happened in a mournful context (Joshua contains no poetry, psalms, or celebrations of victory)
4. There are only about 11 towns destroyed (This in itself doesn’t make it right AT ALL, but it is important to note this was not a large genocide)

I don’t have a good reply to the חרם (ḥērem) I wish I did. Do you?

How do you read the Histories in the Bible?

The Bible is a book that is filled with many kinds of literature. There are poems, philosophical works, stories of people, songs, visions, and many other genres. Amidst the cornucopia of scriptural records are many accounts that seek to inform people about events of the past. These books are often called the "historical books." Although these books have historically been authorities in understanding what has happened in the past, that assumption has been seriously challenged in the last 400 years by many scholars in the field of historiography. 

What is historiography?

Historiography is in broad terms is the scholastic discipline of history. It is concerned with how we go about discovering what has happened. Historiography has gone through many changes over the years. In its "modern" form the discipline bloomed out of a shift from an emphasis on philosophy as the primary methodology at determining truth to a dependence on the scientific method. The authority on truth in this paradigm is "positivistic" observable evidence. In its quest to find reliable sources on information about the past it moved away from the biblical accounts and sought to determine their authenticity through more "reliable" sources such as archeology.

In the 20th century there was a realization among many scholars that the quest to find an objective source of validation or refutation of the Bible had failed. Those who had sought to find solid ground to stand on had failed to find evidence that either proved or disproved the Bible. Discussions on the objective history of the Bible deteriorated into fights over the ideologies which informed the unnamed assumptions of the scholars. It became more and more clear that objectivity was impossible, and soon scholars were describing the field of Biblical history as "dead."

As a response there have been three parties formed.

First there are those who ignore the failure of the discipline and continue to seek unobtainable objectivity. They maintain a belief that logical-positivism can glen historical truth. These are the modernist.

Second there is post-modernist party which affirms that scientific history is impossible. The reject objectivity and embrace subjectivity. It emphasizes the realm of internal construction of reality. True reality, if it exists at all, is external to individuals, and have given up on any attempt at discovering it.

Thirdly there is a party which affirms that, although history is always viewed through an objective lens, there is a reality out there. They believe that that reality is something that is worth seeking after. Instead of seeking pure objectivity or receding into subjectivity they believe that having an honest declarations about what pre-scientific assumptions and truth claims are impacting the conversation can yield better results at communicating the realties of the past to the present. This is the path that Iain provan V. Phillips Long and Tremper Longman III imploy in their 2003 book "A Biblical history of Israel."

So do you think studding the history of the Bible is a dead discipline, or do you think there is a way forward with radical integrity?