Before reading this, some may think: "This is just going to be a review by one of those Duke Liberals..." To quash that point of view let me point out that I thoroughly reject the labels of "liberal," "conservative," and pretty much anything in between. Here's why: Liberal by definition means that one does away with resources or traditional belief systems. Ronald Reagan is known as a "conservative," but his military policies and spending were so "liberal" that they bankrupted the competing USSR. But he's a "conservative?" Conversely, people who try to "conserve" natural resources are often labeled as "liberals."
Rather than being definitions, these words have turned into being accusations of people by someone who disagrees with those people. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are terms that I thoroughly reject and dismiss because they have lost their meaning. I refuse to define myself by either term.
With that said, let me delve into the 2 books above.
Both Love Wins by Rob Bell and Who Will Be Saved by United Methodist Bishop Will Willimon at similar in content and message. While Willimon's book is written mainly to an academic audience, Bell's book tackles the same topic with language for an everyday audience. To review one is to review the other. So, I will look at both of them as one (Yes, there are differences, but the main message is the same).
These books look at salvation from a biblical point of view. They challenge modern beliefs of salvation without rejecting them. Quite honestly, both books leave some questions for the reader by him/herself. By challenging our view of salvation, they don't say what many Christians believe is wrong, but they ask the question if we limit God in our minds. I found both books to be intriguing and even at times frustrating; which, I believe is the purpose.
The modern view of salvation is that in order to "go to heaven," one must "confess to being a sinner" and "ask Jesus to be one's personal savior." (quotation marks are not intended to trivialize this belief, but to accentuate the point). This view then leaves one to wonder: what about the billions of people who have never (or in the future, will never) hear the gospel of Jesus? What about those who have heard but for some reason couldn't understand? What about those who understand but reject the gospel? In the modern view, if you understand and reject the gospel, the thought is you "go to hell" when you die. There is much debate and argument for those who haven't heard or haven't understood, and there are many theories. Some say these people will "go to hell," while others say "God will judge them based on their circumstances."
Let me digress and point out why I say "modern view of salvation." Our doctrines of salvation have always been changing since the time of Jesus (and even before). I'm only going to deal with post-Jesus salvation for the purposes of this review. Some early Church thinkers (Origen, for example) believed that Jesus' sacrifice redeemed all of creation, and he believed more or less in universal salvation (all are saved). As time went on, it was believed that salvation only came through the church and sacraments of the church. People also throughout time added our actions (are you a "good" or "bad" person) to determine salvation. The Protestant Reformation led to the foundation of modern views that salvation is by grace (a free gift from God) through faith (believing in Jesus' sacrifice). From there, some theologians discussed "predestination." Some say God predestined some to salvation and some to non-salvation (hell). Other's say God gives the opportunity to all to be saved and it's our free choice.
These books look seriously at all these arguments. They challenge them without disrespecting them or ruling them out. Both point out that God can handle our tough questions. That's why God is God, after all.
Both of these books point to the saving nature of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. They use scripture to point out that Jesus came to "save" not "judge" ("judge" meaning condemn). That is a very strong argument supported by scripture. Jesus' very nature was to "save" humanity and creation. That's why the Gospels are "Good news."
Neither book denies hell or says that all will be saved, but leaves open the possibility. That is not entirely unorthodox in that scripture states that God does not want any to perish. Neither book advocates universalism, but both allow that God has the power to save all, should God choose. And, by God's very nature, that would be within God's power.
Both books stick to Christian doctrine that "Jesus is the only way," but they ask very important questions about that statement. Can one go through Jesus without knowing it is Jesus? Will Jesus be as he was in the story of Zaccheaus? In that story, Jesus "went as low as a person (or God) could go" to bring salvation to a person. Zaccheaus was a chief tax collector, and therefore a supporter of the brutal Roman Empire. Tax collectors also were known to "over-collect" and "skim money for themselves" from that "over-collecton." Will Jesus go to the lowest of the low and at least try to save them?
Both books point out that scripture says that God will at least attempt to save everyone. This is also in line with scripture. Because of God's love, God wants to spend eternity with all. Because of God's love, we have free will. We can choose to reject God's love. Can God reject our rejection? That's a question left open.
While Willemon doesn't go into definitions of "heaven" and "hell" as much as Bell does, both still assert that both exist. Bell goes to great lengths to define each. "Heaven" is not just the "sweet by and by," but rather "full communion with God." "Hell" is not just a place of eternal burning, but "complete separation from God." With the evidence Bell gives from scripture, his definitions seem plausible if not convincing. Both point out that salvation is not just "going to heaven," (though that is a part of it), but salvation is also for the "here and now." Salvation is the communion or relationship with God that we can have at any time.
Neither book gives definite answers, and I think that is exactly the point. We can't totally know the ways of God. We can know that God is love. God wants all to be saved. Somehow, as both point out, God will offer salvation to all people. After that offer (in whatever form it takes - probably different for each person given differences in personalities/cognitive abilities/culture/etc.), it is each individual's choice to accept salvation or to deny it. Both also give hope that we don't have to worry about those who never heard the Gospel or those who didn't understand the Gospel, but that we should still minister in a way to spread the Gospel so people can attain salvation immediately.
I found both books to be scripturally accurate but they also brought up many important questions. The modern "ask for forgiveness of your sins and ask Jesus into your heart" way is not wrong. Neither is believing that "Jesus is the only way to God the Father." Both of those ways ARE valid means to salvation according to both authors. They divert from this in that billions never have or will have heard the Gospel (or hear it but don't understand). When it comes to these people, they emphasize that God is a God of love first and judgement second. They emphasize that while God must judge, God judges out of love.
An illustration by Willemon sums up both books. Here is a synopsis of his illustration: A pastor had to preach a funeral of a man who lived a sinful life, didn't know (or even care) about God, and committed suicide. In order to give comfort to the family, while still acknowledging this man's faults, the pastor made a statement how God may be saying what the pastor himself was thinking. "I'm mad as hell at you for how you lived your life. But, I love you..." The illustration goes on. It doesn't say this man is "saved," but it leaves the possibility open.
As Christians, we know that Jesus is the only way to God. What that looks like to God we cannot know for sure. We can only know that our job is to bring people to God through Christ. God will deal with the rest, and however it is done, it will be fair and loving.
No comments:
Post a Comment