There Is Only One Gospel

I preached yesterday out of Mark 1:1-9 as our church is beginning a lengthy study of the life and ministry of Jesus through the Gospel of Mark. In the opening sentence, Mark declares that this is “the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”. The gospel. One of my primary passions as a pastor is to help Christians understand the gospel more fully and to help them apply the truth of the gospel to every part their lives.

You can find a number of different versions of the gospel in the theological marketplace these days, but Mark indicates here that there is only one gospel, concerning the news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If a your gospel adds to or takes away from His gospel than it is a false gospel, a false teaching, a false doctrine.

The most dangerous false gospels are not those that exclude Jesus but those that include Jesus. Just because a teacher or preacher includes Jesus does not make it theologically sound or even distinctively Christian. The gospel is not merely inclusive of Jesus, rather it is exclusively about Jesus.

As Christians, we have to be clear about this. There is only one way to salvation and it is through Jesus Christ. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12) I emphasize this because there is enormous pressure in our culture for Christians to be more open-minded and, yes, tolerant of other beliefs. “Tolerance” isn’t a biblical word but there are plenty who use it synonymously with grace. And the gospel is all about grace. The gospel is also all about the truth. We find in Jesus, who is said in John’s gospel to be full of grace and truth, that these two characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Jesus was not 50% gracious and 50% truthful. There was not a balance of these attributes in the character of Christ, he was both fully gracious and fully truthful. Grace and truth are not only compatible with each other, but you actually can’t have one without the other. 

Rightly Defining What's Been Re-defined

In his book called Biblical Eldership, Alexander Strauch rightly states that, “false teachers have had their greatest triumphs when they redefine biblical words in a way that is contrary to their original meaning.” And this is precisely what has happened in a very broad sense. Consequently, holding to the conviction that there is only one gospel, that Jesus is the only way to salvation, will make people, not only outside the church but often in the church, absolutely crazy. Nothing makes people today more angry than exclusive truth claims.

This kind of “intolerance” will get you branded a religious fanatic. It is the ultimate sin in a culture that doesn’t acknowledge sin. In fact it’s the unpardonable sin of our day because it’s blasphemy against the spirit of our age, the spirit of tolerance, which has come to mean that all truth claims and all belief systems are equally valid, which by the way, is far to easily overlooked as truth claim in itself, the only acceptable one in secular society.

Writing in 1908, G.K. Chesterton makes this observation which is eerily prophetic considering the times we live in:

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man he asserts is exactly the part he ought not to assert- himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not doubt - the Divine Reason. 

False teachers have hijacked our understanding of humility and conviction which are just other ways to talk about about grace and truth. As a result, humility is linked with tolerance which has to mean that we must be accepting of other people’s views as true or at least potentially true. But that’s not what tolerance means and humility doesn’t lead us there.

Tolerance is treating with integrity, humility and dignity someone whose opinions I believe to be untrue and completely invalid. Like grace and truth, you can’t have tolerance without conviction. You aren’t tolerant of anything until you are convicted about something.

Conviction Matters

As Christians, we have to be people of unwavering conviction. We must also be people of humility, tolerant of those who have not yet come to a knowledge of the truth. The only thing that has the power to produce both is a firm belief in the gospel, that is exclusively about Jesus Christ. If we really believe this gospel we will be the most humble people on the planet because we are saved only by grace and that same belief will fuel our zeal for mission and evangelism because of our conviction that there is no hope for anyone apart from Jesus and the gospel.

“The story of America's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community is the story of our fathers and sons, our mothers and daughters, and our friends and neighbors who continue the task of making our country a more perfect Union.” Thus begins President Barrack Obama’s May 31 proclamation declaring June 2011 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  His proclamation, like a tree falling in a deserted forest, landed so so silently that no one even noticed.  But the homosexual community was surely delighted and evangelicals might have been incensed - had they known the nation was celebrating this special month in honor of homosexuality in all its variety.

The opening words of Obama’s proclamation hit close to home for me because this is the story, in part, of my youngest sister’s life.  She was among those who have attempted to create a “more perfect union” by favoring homosexual couplings to heterosexual ones.  By joining a four person confederacy of two lesbian females and two homosexual males - each pair claiming identity as married couples - they attempted to start just “one big happy family.”  Desiring children, however, this foursome opted for sexual relations between my sister and her domestic partner’s biological brother (was he my sister’s then presumed brother-in-law?) to produce children when neither of their respective unions offered any hope of reproductive potential.  Enough heterosexual conjugal activity occurred between these homosexuals (go figure) to allow this “creative alternative” to produce two daughters before my sister succumbed to cancer in June 2009.  Suffice it to say that my experience of this Frankenstein’s monster of a man-made marriage fell far short of anything that I would consider a “more perfect union” or a happy family.

Before you cluck your tongue and imagine this could never happen within your extended family, consider the more recent governmental activism promoting the homosexual agenda.  On June 24th, the New York legislature approved that state’s Marriage Equality Act. This makes New York the sixth state where so-called homosexual weddings (I’ll call them “counterfeit marriages”) will be legally institutionalized: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, (and the District of Columbia).  New Jersey does not allow for same sex marriages but does permit same sex civil unions that convey many legal rights similar to those extended to heterosexual marriage partners. Thus “domestic partnerships” are increasingly being judged worthy of special recognition under the law.  Interestingly, the New York statute does not require residency for same sex partners to be wed.  Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, expressed particular concern over that aspect of the Marriage Equality Act and said, “I guarantee you this action by the New York State Assembly and Cuomo has already signed it will bring same-sex marriage to a house near you."  My sister’s scenario might well become a more frequent story in our increasingly decadent society.

On the surface it seems strange to have proponents the homosexual lifestyle demand not just the general acceptance of their sexual orientation but now also the recognition of that alternative lifestyle as equal in every respect to heterosexual marriage.  To demand affirmation of their perspective when they so relentlessly deny the right of others to cling just as tenaciously to differing values is truly hypocritical. The governmental demand for our society to embrace these counterfeit marriages is not simply an appeal for more tolerance but a totalitarian imposition of a minority’s interests on the majority of Americans whose minds and hearts are governed by faith and values that are overtly offended by the issue and whose conviction about the evils of homosexuality are equally sincere.

Put another way, homosexual activists argue that it is absurd for society to make any attempt to “legislate morality” by opposing alternative lifestyles, but in championing the cause of these counterfeit marriages, they are effectively arguing for society to choose instead to “legislate immorality.”  As the momentum of this special interest group grows and as more states succumb to this assault on traditional family values, I believe it is imperative for Christians to understand how they could and should be responding to the issue.

As a place to begin, the writer of Hebrews counsels believers in Jesus to “hold fast to their confession” of faith and the truth of God’s word.  The Greek root translated by our English word “confession” is the word “homologeo” which means to speak the same thing (homos, "same," and lego, "to speak").  The Greek notion of “confession” means to offer one’s assent, or to be in accord or agreement with another.  In the modern English vernacular, we associate the word “confession” primarily with an admission of guilt for wrong doing.  James 5:16 employs this connotation when the apostle urges his readers to “confess their sins to one another.”  But a New Testament understanding of “confession” goes deeper than merely acknowledging guilt. Confession goes beyond saying “I did it and I was wrong” (an open admission of guilt) to also include saying “God said it and he is right” (a statement aligning our lives with God’s revealed word in the Bible).

So, in the broader sense of the term, what must a biblically informed confession on this emerging issue in our society maintain?  I suggest four points are necessary if we are to stay true to the Scripture.  Specifically, we must hold to our confession by maintaining a  commitment to the following perspectives:

Marriage has been defined by God and cannot be redefined by man 

God ordained marriage and defined it himself when in Genesis 2:24 Moses wrote under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, “a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”  This act of God in giving Adam and Eve to one another to be husband and wife established marriage as a divinely designed heterosexual union between one man and one women for life.  This foundation for marriage has provided an uncontested pattern for creating new families in all societies since the creation account was recorded in Genesis and heterosexual marriage has remained the basic building block for society in every culture in every era.  This is a reality that has gone uncontested for millennia - until now.  As a starting point on this subject then, we must align ourselves with God’s definition of marriage and refuse to accept an alternative rendering proposed by proponents of these counterfeit marriages.  God has determined what relationships constitutes a marriage in his eyes and we have no latitude to disagree with him, to redefine the institution of marriage, or to demonstrate a level of tolerance for the opinions of men as somehow reaching beyond God’s purview as the one who alone is Lord over all.

Sexual relationships outside of marriage cannot be legitimized by human rationalizations or government legislation

The fall of man in Genesis 3 introduced sin into human experience and with sin an alienation between God and man.  With the disruption of our vertical relationship with our Creator came a more general disruption of horizontal relationships among human beings and between mankind and creation as a whole.  One reflection of that horizontal disruption is the perversion of the “one flesh” relationship reflected in sexual intimacy between human beings which God permitted only within a heterosexual marriage. The divinely ordained and heavenly blessed sexual relationship between a husband and a wife has been distorted from the time of the fall such that all manner of sin has attended human sexual expression. 

As God’s word says in 1 Timothy 1:10, “⁸ But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ⁹ realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers ¹⁰ and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.” 

Romans 1:22-32 adds credence to the general denunciation of homosexuality as one specific sin among many others by asserting that “same sex” sexual expression is a notable evidence (but certainly not the only evidence) of the kind of foolishness that abounds and masquerades as wisdom among men when they refuse to acknowledge God as the sovereign ruler of their lives.  As a consequence of rebellion such men, Paul goes on to say, are given over to depraved minds and degrading passions, and in the end they defile themselves pursuing their own perverse appetites.  As Romans explains, the “worldly wisdom” that would support acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and that would assert the propriety of counterfeit marriages is an expression of foolishness and sin, a characterization that is not diminished by governmental approval - whether manifest in legislation, in judicial action, or by constitutional amendment. 

Even recognition of homosexual relationships by church authorities as an acceptable alternative lifestyle (as has been forthcoming in some mainline denominations) does not trump God’s clear declaration that homosexuality is a sin.  Asserting a claim to equal rights under the law does not make the sin of homosexuality less sinful.  This is part of the confession we must maintain unashamedly if we are to remain aligned with God’s word on the matter.  This reality will not be popular with political and moral progressives in America but it does honor God’s word and his truth as expressed in the bible.  The bottom line is that those who claim allegiance to Christ are not free to condone what God would condemn.

We cannot legislate morality and we should not legislate immorality

The minds and hearts of men are not controlled very effectively by rules and regulations - whether they are the laws of God expressed in the Bible or the laws of men made administered under any system of government.  The law of God we are told in Scripture, was itself not given to make men sin less but rather to help them recognize their sin more.  That is why 1 Timothy 1:9 quoted above says straightforwardly that the “law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious” - in short the law was intended to impact sinners by helping them see their sin clearly.  The law was meant specifically to openly expose the sinfulness of man for what it is.  As Paul writes in Romans 7:13, the law was given “in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become utterly sinful.”  If the law of God does not have the power to restrain the sin of men but rather reveals it and even intensifies it (see Romans 7:7-8), how can we hope to have the laws of men and societies perform a reforming function more effectively?  The laws of men merely dictate the sinful behaviors that will result in a societal consequences meted out in fines, incarceration, and even potentially in capital punishment. 

Not all sins deserve public attention and punishment.  But some do and always have.  Murder certainly does.  So do a variety of sexual sins - incest, rape, child molestation to name a few.  Neither homosexual nor heterosexual fornication generally merit these kinds of legal restraints and I am not recommending such here.  I only mean to point out that some sins deserve public attention and proscription while others do not.  Similarly, some virtues deserve public support as we see with the favorable attention and support the laws of the US lend to marriage, to home ownership, to entrepreneurial business initiatives, to investment, to charitable giving, etc.  Some vices, on the other hand, deserve public condemnation or discouragement as we have seen with penalties or taxes imposed with respect to cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, littering, polluting the environment, or to the proscription of drug use and gambling in most jurisdictions. To propose that it is a wise move for our society to lend public support to private vices is absurd and it seems to me that endorsement of counterfeit marriages fits in this category. 

To reiterate the point made above, we cannot legislate morality and we should not legislate immorality. We should not provide legal sanction for the sin patterns promoted by any special interest group in our society.   To protect and promote practices which God characterizes as perverse, to make them not just tolerable but foundational to our national ethos, is to promote chaos in our culture and it should be avoided.  In this respect again, the demand for our society to embrace counterfeit marriages is not an appeal for tolerance but a totalitarian imposition on the minds and hearts of people who are compelled by God to hold fast to their confession of biblical faith and to a Scriptural definition of sin.  Embracing homosexual unions with matrimonial trappings diminishes the institution of marriage by removing the promise of reproduction as an underlying value in marriage,  by distorting the unique covenant relationship God ordained for a man and a woman, by confusing the relationship between Christ and the church which is mysteriously portrayed in Christian marriages, and by pretending that the sin inherent in homosexual unions can be legitimized by a simple marriage ceremony.  Promoting same sex unions also increases the potential for indecent exposure to sexual perversion at too early an age and may even bring children under the influence of demonic spirits which can be involved in the practice of homosexual sin. 

Shakespeare was right when he said that a rose, called by any other name, would still smell as sweet. But we are wrong to presume that a sinful relationship called by any other name somehow no longer remains offensive to God or to his people.  Homosexual unions called by some other name just don’t pass the smell test.  As Shakespeare also said, we should be aware when it becomes apparent that “something is rotten in Denmark.”  And this ploy to drape homosexual sin with a robe of respectability alerts us that something is going terribly wrong in our society.  Same sex unions should remain offensive to followers of Jesus because they are an abomination to our Lord - no matter what they are called.  An attempt to legislate immoral relationships simply does not invest them with moral virtue and it is foolishness to think otherwise.

Marriage needs to be constitutionally defined as the union of one man with one woman 

 It is clear that some laws have always been necessary in relation to marriage because this is a unique institution that has the most dramatic impact on society because it is the means by which new lives are best introduced into the world and through which children are best socialized in preparation for their participation in life as responsible adults.  It is in the home, ideally with a mother and father that life begins and, as Chuck Swindoll has suggested, it is in such a home that “life makes up its mind” about values, morals, faith, world view, customs, propriety and impropriety.  The sexual union in marriage is intended to be the usual context that produces children.  The one flesh relationship between husbands and wives is intended by God to reproduce offspring which are literally the joint reflection of the individual biological make up of the respective parents, united through reproduction, in the “one flesh” DNA of the child.  Children are designed not just to share their parents’ chromosomes, but also their parents’ sense of character and convictions about God, family, country and a myriad of other life lessons. 

Marriage therefore creates a mutual claim of both parents to have the right to raise their children together. These rights of parents must be protected by law because of the threat of of kidnapping and human trafficking, and because of the custody conflicts that arise through divorce.  Other laws relating to marriage, touch on inheritance privileges, survivor’s benefits, and property ownership, on income taxes liabilities, and so on. The inevitable legal significance of marriage makes it imperative that there be a clear national understanding of what constitutes a legitimate marriage relationship.  To make this definition a “states rights issue” opens the door to 50 different interpretations, and promotes incredible confusion as we have already begun to see just in the last two years.  

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed by Congress in 1996 under the Clinton administration.  This act defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and specifically did not require any one state to endorse or to accept a different definition of marriage if such were to be adopted by another state jurisdiction.  In July 2010, the definition of marriage asserted by DOMA was declared unconstitutional by a Federal court and in February 2011, the Obama Justice Department announced it would not defend the statute by making an appeal.  Such instances of judicial fiat by which Federal judges over-rule with equal ease both federal and state legislation and even the expressed will of voters who have passed constitutional provisions defining marriage in a manner consistent with DOMA (see California’s experience with Proposition 8 in 2008) has created a call among conservatives for a Federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.  In the current climate, this would appear to be the only plausible option if we are to stem the tide of the impending chaos that could come about if America chooses merely to allow everyone to do what is right in their own eyes with regard to the institution of marriage.

Conclusion

Because Christians are urged by the Scriptures to hold fast to their confession of faith, and because their confession requires both an acknowledgment of sin as God defines sin, and an alignment with righteousness as God defines righteousness, Christians must be prepared to stand unashamedly for the truth as the Bible reveals truth.  Doing so will not be easy and may even engender persecution if standing in a Biblically defensible position on homosexuality is later declared to be categorized as “hate speech” by those sympathetic to the homosexual community’s cause.  This is not to say that persecution is an expected judgment for our nation’s increasing embrace of homosexuality.  As Romans 1:24 makes clear, the wrath of God is already revealed in judgment when God gives men over in “the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.” 

The growing popular acceptance of homosexuality (and other perverse sexual appetites) is an indication that the wrath of God is already being released upon us.  This makes our choice to stand courageously for the truth all the more important.  I hope this article will help members of Generations to think through this issue more clearly and to know how to respond articulately as they encounter the call for a redefinition of marriage from their friends, neighbors, their political leaders and their co-workers who are too easily surrendering to the tidal wave or foolish thinking that is assaulting traditional family values and traditional families in America. Let’s hold fats to our confession and maintain heterosexual marriage as the “more perfect union” God had in mind when the first human family was created.

In honor of Mother's Day this week it seemed appropriate to highlight the leadership and ministry of godly, courageous women who, often unknown to the masses, gave their lives in service to Jesus. These are some of the women of the Reformation according pastor Justin Holcomb. 

All too often, the textbooks focus solely on the men of the Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and others—and fail to take notice of the faithful women who served among, beside, and with the Reformers.

These women were dedicated to the gospel of Jesus Christ, some to the point of martyrdom. Many of these women were well-educated, especially by the standard of their time. They read theology books, especially the Bible, and anything they could get their hands on from the reformers. Their inner circles of friends were part of long and frequent Bible studies. Most were wives and mothers. Some were also authors, apologists, ex-nuns, and queens. All were faithful servants of Jesus.

GERMANY

Katherine von Bora was a former nun who married Martin Luther. They were married for 21 years and had six children. Her quick tongue, humor, and stubbornness matched Martin’s—no small feat. She managed their home (which was frequently full of students), had a large garden and livestock, fished and farmed, and ran a brewery. She also managed their money and took care of their extended household. Martin called her “My Lord Katie.”

Katharina Schutz Zell was married to Matthew Zell of Strasbourg and ministered as a team with her husband. She developed women’s ministries and published a book of Psalms for women to sing. She took a leading role in organizing relief for 150 men exiled from their town for their faith, and wrote scriptural encouragements to the wives and children left behind. During the Peasants’ War, she organized Strasbourg to deal with 3,000 refugees for a period of six months.

Ursula von Münsterberg (1491? – 1534) was the granddaughter of King Georg Podiebrad of Bohemia. Ursala was a nun at a convent in Freiberg, Saxony. She spearheaded an effort to bring in a chaplain who was familiar with Luther and had Luther’s books smuggled into the convent. Because of this, she was forced to flee her convent in 1529, after which she stayed with the Luther family.

Argula von Grumbach was a Bavarian noblewoman who vigorously challenged the faculty of the University of Ingolstadt to debate her reformed views. Her letters were widely published.

Anna Rhegius was born in Augsburg in 1505. She had a good education, which included the study of Hebrew, enabling herto discuss biblical writings in great depth.

Elisabeth von Braunschweig married at age 15. After being married for ten years, her mother visited Elisabeth and invited a Lutheran pastor to preach. Within a year, Elisabeth converted and resolved to raise her son as a Lutheran. After the death of her husband she wrote a book attempting to console widows, helping them through the grieving process.

Elisabeth Cruciger was from Pomerania and spent time at the convent in Treptow on Rega. She left the convent in 1522 or 1523 and married Caspar Cruciger in 1524, which marked the first official Protestant wedding. A friend of Katie Luther’s, Elizabeth was involved in theological discussions at Luthers’“table talks” and with Philip Melanchthon, who considered her to be a bright woman. She wrote the first Protestant hymn in 1524, which created a controversy since women were not usually songwriters in her day.

FRANCE & THE LOW COUNTRIES

Jeanne d’Albret was the Queen of Navarre and an influential leader of the Huguenot movement in France. She invited Reformed preachers to speak in her land and publicly declared her adherence to Calvinism in 1560; however, she made it clear that she followed “Beza, Calvin and others only insofar as they follow Scripture.” She attempted to bridge the divide between Catholics and Protestants and tried to bring peace as wars began to break out. In fact, while a Protestant, she continued to allow the Mass to take place in her land, refusing to punish Catholics who did not convert to Protestantism.

Ursula Jost was an influential Anabaptist woman in Strasbourg who wrote a book recounting her prophetic visions of the impending judgment of God that would come upon the people of her city.

Idelette de Bure was a widow with three children when she married John Calvin. One child of theirs died while an infant and she miscarried another. In the process, Calvin, who spoke little of his married life, was deeply touched. Their relationship softened his heart deeply.

Marie Dentière (c. 1495-1561) was of Flemish descent from a family of minor nobility. She was part of an Augustinian monastery in Tournai, which she later left after embracing the teachings of the reformers, a crime against both church and state. She fled to Strasbourg and married Simon Robert, who had had been a priest in Tournai, becoming his assistant in their goal of spreading the reform to the area to the east of Geneva. After her husband’s death she married Antione Froment, a follower of reformer William Farel. Marie wrote an anonymous pamphlet intended to convince the Genevans of God’s intentions for their city. She also spoke out in public taverns and on street corners. It was a success as Geneva eventually became a Protestant republic. She also wrote a book recounting the history of the Geneva reformation.

ENGLAND

Jane Grey wrote letters to the reformer Heinrich Bullinger at age 14. As queen, Jane fought off intense efforts to convert her to Rome when she was 16. She resisted those efforts with theological reasoning and biblical teaching against a professor of theology twice her age.

Catherine Willoughby became the duchess of Suffolk in 1533 and was related to Jane Grey. She protected the preacher-bishop Hugh Latimer from persecution until things became so unbearable for her that, to save her life, she fled to the Netherlands with her infant.  She was forced into exile as a supporter of the Reformation.

ITALY

Olimpia Fulvia Morata was an Italian scholar born in Ferrera as the oldest child of a humanist scholar, who, after being forced to flee his city to northern Italy, lectured on the teachings of Calvin and Luther. Olimpia flourished in her studies, especially in Latin and Greek, exhibiting impeccable scholarship. She wrote Latin dialogues, Greek poems, and letters to both scholars (in Latin) and less educated women (in Italian). In her “Dialogue between Theophilia and Philotima,” she encouraged those who feared that their gross sins obstructed their way to God:

Don't be afraid … No odor of sinners can be so foul that its force cannot be broken and weakened by the sweetest odor that flows from the death of Christ, which alone God can perfume. Therefore seek Christ.

All of these women longed to see the Reformation triumph, and the good news of the gospel overcome opposition both within the church and outside it. They served with patience, perseverance, and courage. They were not just observers of the Reformation, but they were also participants. Moreover, each was used mightily by God to maintain the integrity of his church and redeem a fallen humanity.

In my last post, I addressed the first five concerns I have about Rob Bell’s controversial book, Love Wins.  In this offering, I will add five more. These are not all the concerns I have, but they are sufficiently representative to help my readers grasp the kinds of issues that have created the firestorm with which the book has been greeted. My hope is that my cautions will encourage other readers of Bell’s material to critically evaluate whether his teaching meets the standards of biblical and evangelical orthodoxy.  I concluded my last post suggesting that Bell is, in my view, an inclusivist with universalist tendencies and no longer a thoroughgoing evangelical.  Allow me to defend this conclusion as I add more to my list of concerns about this book.

• Bell eventually admits that his views are not shared by all evangelicals so that we must admit that tensions exist as we seek to grasp these realities of the spiritual life.  Bell concludes, “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 that love requires (115).”  The ambiguity Bell sees in the traditional evangelical gospel is not present with the apostles as they give clear testimony in the Scriptures about how men are to be saved by grace through faith in Jesus alone, what we can expect to experience in eternity (for good or for ill), and how we are to live this side of heaven in Christ’s honor.  As John writes in 1 John 5:11-13, “¹¹And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. ¹³I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.”  John wanted his readers to be certain of their destiny in Christ, an issue that had to be settled in this world as a preparation for the next.  Bell’s position leaves one void of the eternal security John envisions for becoming Christ followers.  John offers eternal security based on the word of God, while Bell offers eventual security based on his own, unsupported, “better story.”  Beware exchanging the truth of God for a lie!
• He seems to hold to the idea that Jesus can save in the context of sincere faith expressed in the context of any of the world’s religions.  He says specifically, “Jesus is bigger than any one religion (150) ... and we (Christians) cannot claim him to be ours any more than he is any one else’s  ... As Jesus says in John 10, ‘I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen (152).’ ”  Going on, Bell writes, “John remembers Jesus saying, ‘I am the way the truth and the life.  No one can come to the Father except through me’ ... What he doesn’t say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him.  He doesn’t even state that those coming to the the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him ... And so the passage is exclusive, deeply so, insisting on Jesus alone as the way to God.  But it is an exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity.  First their is exclusivity ... Then there is inclusivity.  The kind that is open to all religions, the kind that trusts that (all) good people will get in (to heaven), that there is only one mountain but it has many paths.  This inclusivity assumes that as long as your heart is fine or your actions measure up, you’ll be okay (154-155).”  Of course, Romans 3:23 makes it clear that no ones actions measure up - nonetheless, in Bell’s theology, everyone is saved in the end as “love wins.”  This all lies dangerously close to the inclusive and universalist views of salvation described in my previous blog - views never accepted as legitimate expressions of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
• He states plainly that “failure isn’t final” for sinful men and women and therefore we all get as many chances as are necessary to ultimately let God’s grace prevail so that we will all live in eternity with God (88). These ongoing chances for reconciliation with God, says Bell, can come after death if necessary, as he expresses an expectation better than Catholic purgatory (a concept he doesn’t mention but which interestingly extends in Catholic theology only to those who die in a state of grace with faith in Christ) by asserting that “there will be endless opportunities in an endless amount of time for people to say yes to God” if they have said “no” before their earthly demise (107).  Bell however, offers no biblical support for this position - an inexcusable failure for one who is inclined to share so profound a fiction.  He offers no support from Scripture for his teaching because there is none to be found there.

• He states plainly again, “At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence (107).  We can be saved now or later, in this life or the next, within the Christian faith or in another faith, without even knowing Jesus name (159) and without ever asking his forgiveness (188).  Bell’s teaching, taken as a whole, approaches the demonic council found in the famous exchange with the devil in C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters.  In Lewis’ story, one demon suggests to Satan that they defeat saving faith among men by allowing them to believe there is no heaven.  Another suggests that they promote the idea that there is no hell.  Finally one ingeniously puts forward the notion that they encourage men and women to believe there is no hurry in dealing with sin in this life.  With no time demand in view, the demons conclude, no one will care whether they repent of sin or not before they die.  What a devilish idea!  Bell has successfully incorporated into his book variations on all three demonic strategies!

• Finally, Bell ends his book with a curiously incongruent appeal for his readers to exercise great care in the earthly choices they make.  he writes, “it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine (197).”  Having spent the first 196 pages of a 198 page book encouraging the calm complacency characteristic of Universalists and the sense of security born of the sense of ultimate unconditional acceptance with God common among Inclusivists, this last ditch plea for urgency seems out of place.  Exclusivist theology would support such an appeal for repentance concerned about there being time still to repent.  When the writer of Hebrews says in Hebrews 3:15, “Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts!”, there is a sense of urgency that is understandable.  But in Bell’s teaching when there is no heaven, there is  no hell, and there is no hurry, getting right with God requires no rush.  God’s kingdom, in Bell’s estimation, is governed on a pass/fail system and no one is allowed to fail. If Bell’s theologizing in Love Wins is correct, there really is no hurry to please God, and no need to worry about sin, and the importance of earthly choices (right or wrong) is more a virtual concern than a vital one.  The evangelical urgency expressed in the end of this book is completely inconsistent with Bell’s evangelical insurgency expressed from the beginning of its pages.  In trying to have his theology played out both ways, Bell falls short and Love Wins turns out to be a loser in my opinion. 

If readers hold the Bible as their plumb line in evaluating Bell’s offering, the errors of his ways will be clearly seen!   He seems to be unfortunately intent upon establishing himself as a purveyor of controversy joining others who would seek to undermine the simplicity of the gospel.  Such men and their teachings are, according to Titus 3:9, to be avoided.  If you haven’t read the book, save yourself the trouble and steer clear.  There are better books waiting to be read.

For an even more careful and comprehensive theological review of Bell's book by Kevin DeYoung click here. 

Having laid the groundwork for an examination of Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins, let’s take a look at some of the specific issues I found troubling in what Bell has written.  I’ll try to annotate the references to the book as best I can in case you want to check the accuracy of my reporting.  Here is a summary of my personal critique of the Bell’s book.  I am bothered that:

• He raises more theological questions than he answers and is inclined to refer to the beliefs of others when making unorthodox claims and assertions which appear to be his own views.  Using this device he makes his case with apparent historical support while carefully avoiding open identification with questionable positions evangelicals would find objectionable. (Read pages 105-110 for a variety of examples.) 

• He makes the concepts of heaven, the kingdom of God, shalom, and eternity somewhat interchangeable terms - which they are not in orthodox biblical theology. (Read chapter 2: Here Is the New There)  By doing so, Bell ends up confusing his readers and clouding the issues he purports to be clarifying. He says for example, “There is heaven now, somewhere else.  There is heaven here, sometime else (62).  Heaven is a real place, space, where God’s will and only God’s will is done (42), where nothing threatens God’s shalom (32) and where everything is in its right place - that state in which nothing is required, needed, or missing (48).”  In Bell’s theology, “heaven has teeth, flames, edges and sharp points (49) but hell does not. We can go there when we die and yet be citizens there before we do.  Having flooded the reader with conflicting images Bell concludes his presentation on heaven sarcastically saying, “try to paint that!”

• He redefines hell so that it is not an ultimate spiritual destination for evil men and unbelievers but rather a condition of our own making in this life and/or the next as we refuse to honor God as God and as we refuse his grace (78 and 79).  In God’s commitment to honor the free will of man, Bell asserts that God “gives us what we want” for as long as we want (116 and 119) as God gives us over to our own desires.  In effect, we create our own hell in this life and beyond (173) and “we can have all the hell we want” (113) because we make our own hell anyway.  In fact, Bell suggests that “there are all kinds of hells” to experience because we are creative in expressing all kinds of rebellion (79).  God giving us over to our own devices is, to my understanding of the word of God, a notion better associated with the manifestation of God’s wrath, by which the Lord grants us our evil desires (see Romans 1) and not a very good rendering of the biblical concept of hell per se.  In Romans Paul says that God allows us to have our own way if we prefer rebellion to obedience.  Consignment to hell after death may be the outcome of our choice of idolatry over a commitment to God (See Matthew 22:1-14) but the experience of bad consequences in this life flowing from our bad decisions is not what Jesus means when he speaks of hell.  Again, Bell’s attempt to redefine hell so that it is not a destination seems misleading to anyone who reads and interprets the Scriptures from a more literal contextual perspective.  To be sure, we do experience grief for our foolish choices.  Proverbs 14:14 says that the backslider in heart will have the fill of his own ways, and Psalm 106:15 says that God can give us the desire of our hearts while sending leanness into our souls - a condition in which our freedom of choice is satisfied but without producing satisfaction. There may be pleasure in sin for a season but rebellion does not prove rewarding in the end - especially so if rebellion leads to punishment in hell - a possibility Bell denies. 

• As with heaven and hell, Bell seems to mix other conceptual cornerstones of theological truth rather indiscriminately confusing their meaning in the process.  Bell says that the point of God turning people over to their own desires when they are hell-bent on having their own way “is to allow them to live with the consequences of their choices, confident that the misery they find themselves in will have a way of getting their attention .... (so that) wrong doers will become right doers.” (90-91)  In an orthodox understanding of believing faith, repentance makes this is a legitimate expectation.  But repenting is key to our expectation of transformation.  If sinners do not repent - the Scriptures tell us God does not relent in preparing a place of judgment for them.  Read Romans 2:4-11 to be refreshed regarding Paul’s teaching that rebellion stores up God’s wrath for a day of judgment that will come after death.  Or read Matthew 25 where Jesus addresses God’s intention to separate the sheep from the goats (dividing among those who did and did not serve him during their lifetimes).  In that text the Lord himself speaks of consigning evildoers to a place of torment.  Rather than becoming a place of “eternal punishment” as many English translations interpret Matthew 25:46 to say, Bell interprets the Greek verbiage to mean that they are to be separated only “for a period of pruning, or a time of trimming, or an intense experience of correction” (91).  Bell’s hell is merely a temporary setback that can be ended in this life or the next as we will.  God’s love allows our will to rule the timing of our redemption since his love must leave room for  us to decide free from being “forced, manipulated, or coerced” (119).   For Bell, if repentance takes forever, that’s okay, because forever simply doesn’t mean “forever as we think of forever” whether we are speaking of heaven or hell (92). 

•  Central to this position is Bell’s sense that “the belief that untold masses suffering forever (in hell) doesn’t bring glory to God (108).”   Bell makes it clear that, in his view, the traditional teaching about heaven and hell “isn’t a very good story” and his position holding the promise of all wrongs eventually being made right for everyone without exception “is a better story.”  One recalls quickly Paul’s warning (see Galatians 1:6-10) about accepting what some consider a “better story” when their teaching represents the essence of a different gospel.  Repeating the theory he is espousing, Bell writes, “God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts ... (so) history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God (108-109).” This is painfully close to a stark expression of universalism but, holding still to some necessary place for Christ to mediate God’s grace in his rendition of the hope for eternal life, Bell is at a minimum squarely positioned as an inclusivist. In taking this position, he is retreating far from classic evangelical theology.  We’ll dig deeper into that concern in my next blog!