Ready for part ? In , Rob Bell touches on the idea that people could respond to forgiveness from Christ after death. In this post, JR discusses that issue.
And now, installment . In this post, JR discusses his thoughts on whether Rob Bell is a universalist.
Just over a month ago, news that John Piper had tweeted a farewell to Rob Bell, in response to his newest book, , took over evangelical blogs, the twittersphere and secular news agencies.
The fervor over whether or not Bell was a universalist; or whether Piper was being unfair was almost instantaneous. Many people, myself included, were asked our thoughts.
As I was working on my response, I heard from my good friend and former pastor, ,
that he was going to handle the issue in a six-part series. I have just been able to read it, and it is fantastic. I will be posting the links to his blog over the next five days.
The reason that I will post a link each day is in the hopes that the posts will be read in the spirit they were written in. When I was talking with JR on the phone about a week ago, he shared that he hoped that people would read the content and reflect a bit, not just just to the next one or try to get to the answer.
Obviously, if you just want that, you can just stay on his site and do so 
but I hope you will give his answers some reflection.
This isn’t to say you agree or disagree with everything JR says, but he does provide a great foundation upon which the continuing conversation can be had. And what I like is that he tracks the discussion a bit through history. Like it, like it, like it.
So, here is post one. Take a look and I’d love to know what you think!
Peace, Jim
This is part three of a three part posting on processing when God doesn’t do what we ask him to do. Posts one and two are below.
When we do that, we can start to do what Nouwen describes here.
“Dear God, I am so afraid to open my clenched fists!
Who will I be when I have nothing left to hold on to? Who will I be when I stand before you with empty hands?
Please help me to gradually open my hands and to discover that I am not what I own, but what you want to give me.
And what you want to give me is love, unconditional, everlasting love. Amen.”
— Henri Nouwen (The Only Necessary Thing: Living a Prayerful Life)
Nouwen’s point is that we hold things with an open hand. That we trust God enough to relax and instead of grasping or feeling the need to grasp, we relax. It doesn’t mean we don’t work or that effort isn’t needed. It certainly doesn’t mean we don’t ask for specifics, if anything, this has drawn me into asking for more than I did before. It gets to our heart in the midst of that work and effort.
When we are able to see God’s presence in our everyday lives and experiences, and when we can realize that he is more deeply committed to our good and us than we are ever to his. Then our faith, which is the promise of that which is unseen and that which is hoped for, begins to truly come alive.
So, my friend continues to pray for his job. Yes, he would prefer predictability, but what inspires me is his willingness to hang in there for the ride. To pray, to trust, and to remember that he is not alone in this, and he hasn’t been from the start of it.
So, to me, that is what faith is. It isn’t greater predictability, it isn’t a lack of confusion at times or often. It isn’t ceasing asking for specifics out of frustration or confusion. Faith means asking the Father you are convinced loves you for the things that matter to you, and then trusting him, whatever the response. It means holding everything with an open hand, and relaxing. Often he will respond in ways that make sense to us. But that honestly isn’t the point anymore. What matters more than getting what I want is the confidence that I will get what he thinks is best.
More and more, that is enough.
To me, that is the assurance of things unseen, the promise of things hoped for.
Peace, Jim
This post is a part of a three part posting that started here… Welcome to the conversation!
We clearly live in a Westernized culture that has been deeply impacted by both the scientific and industrial revolutions. Both of those have been unbelievably helpful to our culture and the world. We are now able to break down complex systems (organic and inorganic) into smaller parts, study them, and in many cases reproduce or replicate them. These processes are sometimes called systematic deconstruction, we organize something, break it down to its component parts, sort it out then begin to rebuild it. How many advances in medicine can be traced back to those processes?. How many developments in the industrial sector (that we likely appreciate in our economy all the more now) as well?
One of the issues that has come with these advances, though, is that they can tend to be overused and applied in areas where they are less helpful, or even misguided. James Watson, often called the father of Behaviorism, famously stated,
“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.”
Even though Watson isn’t as radical as some might think him to be, he applied a deconstructionist model to parenting and most of us would say that was a misuse. (more…)
Here is the second part of a two part conversation between Bono and author Michka Assayas.
Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?
Bono: Yes, I think that’s normal. It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.
Assayas: I haven’t heard you talk about that.
Bono I really believe we’ve moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.
Assayas: Well, that doesn’t make it clearer for me.
Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics; in physical laws every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that “as you reap, so you will sow” stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff.
Assayas: I’d be interested to hear that.
Bono: That’s between me and God. But I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.
Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.
Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.
Assayas: That’s a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it’s close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?
Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: “I’m the Messiah.” I’m saying: “I am God incarnate.” And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You’re a bit eccentric. We’ve had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don’t mention the “M” word! Because, you know, we’re gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you’re expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he’s gonna keep saying this. So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was the Messiah or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched Bono later says it all comes down to how we regard Jesus:
Bono: [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s— and everybody else’s. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that’s the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.
From
I have a very good friend that is a very godly guy. Over the past several weeks he (and I with many others) have been praying for a job that he would love to have. It seemed like a simple thing, it was a good job, in the field he was interested in, in an exciting city. He had a good confidence that he should go for it and felt good as he prayed for it.
He heard a couple of days ago that he didn’t get it.
Our oldest son, Noah, had the following math problem that I was helping him with last night. “If (some random) high peak in Ohio is 2480 ft above sea level and (some random) low point is 5089% lower, what is the elevation of that low point? He and I were both confused and worked on this problem for about 15 or 20 minutes. Hear that Mr. Knautz? That is dedication!
Our search for the right process was confusing and frustrating, but there was a resolution when we discovered the right way to set up a proportion, solve for x and get the low point’s elevation.
We were confused, it took a while to find the right equation, but we found it, punched in the numbers, solved for x and walked away with the right answer.
My friend’s problem isn’t that easy to solve. If God has power, awareness and love for my friend, then why didn’t he come through? There is no formulaic equation for that one. No stable x to solve for. Henri Nouwen said it like this.
“Theological formation is the gradual and often painful discovery of God’s incomprehensibility. You can be competent in many things, but you cannot be competent in God.”
Certainly there are many things that we can discover in the scriptures and cling to, I have experienced that personally. But we cannot ever get to the point that God becomes predictable to us. That we approach him in prayer and can be certain that we will get what we ask for the way we asked for it in the timeline we have in mind.
So what is the point of faith and prayer? I believe that faith receives its clearest definition in the book of Hebrews, Chapter 11. Here is what is said about faith. “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Hebrews 11.1 NIV. It seems simple enough. It is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we don’t see.
But it isn’t that simple, is it?
First we know that we can occasionally hope for the wrong things. My motives aren’t always very good. Hopefully they are getting more aligned with Christ’s heart, but I am confronted with my brokenness daily, and that brokenness does sometimes leak out into what I ask God for. So, if I hope for something that is wrong, the book of James tells me that I won’t get it. “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” James 4.3 NIV. Yup, I’ve done that plenty of times.
So, if being certain of whatever we hope for isn’t right, what should we do? Assume Hebrews 11 is wrong? I don’t think so, I think the problem is that we aren’t looking deep enough to get to what we can be assured and certain of. It needs to be a bit deeper than a specific request.
I wonder if we just misunderstand that verse a bit. On Monday I will share what I think and then help me see if I am missing anything…
Peace, Jim
So, over the course of the past few days, a bit of a fervor has been stirred up. About Rob Bell, Jesus’ love, and Hell. 
All three of those topics can lead to very intense responses if you feel that they are relevant to you and all three can seem silly if you don’t. This post would be for those who do.
Justin Taylor, wrote a about Bell’s new book In the blog he had some very strong things to say about Bell and the possibility that Bell may have embraced universalism. Universalism is the idea that God, based on his love for humanity will forgive everyone on the planet upon their death, and allow them to join him in heaven. This is regardless of their desire to be with God or to be forgiven by God. Here is one quote from Taylor…
So on that level, I’m glad that Rob Bell has the integrity to be lay his cards on the table about universalism. It seems that this is not just optimism about the fate of those who haven’t heard the Good News, but (as it seems from below) full-blown hell-is-empty-everyone-gets-saved universalism.
I want to be clear that I like several aspects of and I value its focus and voice, even if I don’t share all of its views. (If you would like any clarity on that, let me know) My issue isn’t with that. It is with the apparently over-rapid response to a book that Taylor hadn’t yet read fully. His response seems to me to have been too quick and too strong.
At this point, I will direct you to two of my friends, and , who have written a much more complete reflection on what has been going on. These are great guys, so, Jr and Eugene, take ‘er away…
First JR’s …
Now …
Thoughts?
When this is posted, I will be neck-deep into a great several days in Chevy Chase MD at the We will be spending time with church planters, leaders, and followers of Jesus from all over the country and interacting with some excellent men and women that will no doubt challenge our thinking about how we follow Jesus today and the practices we use to do that following.
That is the part I love to be involved in. Here is the thing I don’t like to do.
I won’t be posting my reflections on , until next week. Fortunately I suspect that no ones lives are going to be shut down by this truth and I also suspect that God’s plan for our world is still on track . But I had told a number of people who have asked for my take on Jennifer Wright Knust’s take that I would get the start of that out this week.
Alas… won’t happen. Have a great week and we can interact (if you are still interested) next week. If you are in the Chevy Chase area, let me know, maybe we can connect!
Peace, Jim
Having a daughter that is 10 1/2 and is already very much aware of body sizes of her classmates and is already lamenting the fact
that she doesn’t look exactly like the most popular girls, I get this. We have avoided, what I would consider, the gross excesses that this article brings out and have discouraged the boyfriend/girlfriend jokes that can fly around everywhere. We consistently emphasize to our daughter the value of her humor, her intellect, her kindness and artistic ability. But these statistics and cultural realities still turn my stomach when I think of her entering her teens all too soon.
Overall, there is content in this from that I agree with and some that I personally disagree with, but I especially was grateful for their description of “sexy” vs “sexualized.” That was a great distinction for Rachel Combe to explore.
I usually sign off with “Peace,” but for this post “Vigilance” seems more apropo. :/
Jim
