Get E-Mail Updates

Love Wins: My Interview with Rob Bell

1100319-robbellMonday morning, 8 a.m PST. My phone rings. It's Rob Bell calling from New York City where he's headed for Central Park to take a stroll with his wife between media appointments. "How's my favorite heretic?" I ask.

Our "interview" is really a conversation between longtime friends. I've known Rob for nearly 23 years. We went to college together. He is one of my favorite people. None of this is a secret, as I've written about Rob and my admiration for him in the past. Which is why you won't see a traditional "news" story or straight-forward book review from me about his recently released book, Love Wins. I am aware of my own biases, which is why what I've written publicly about Love Wins and the ensuing controversy surrounding it have appeared as columns -- works of opinion and commentary. Something to keep in mind as you read an excerpt of the interview below. [Read the full interview here.]

Cathleen Falsani: You've written a really beautiful and powerful book. What is the take-away?

I begin with the world that we live in right now and the simple observation that we can choose heaven and hell right now. I see lots of hell around me all the time. We all do. From greed to abuse to rape to genocide to exploitation of people who are vulnerable -- we see this around us all the time.

And then I see people choosing peace and joy all the time, and experiencing extraordinary peace that transcends anything you can get your mind around. I've sat with people who are days away from dying of cancer and they are connected with a peace and a joy that is so extraordinarily real, it's almost like you can see it in the room.

So I begin there. I begin with this life, with what we see around us, and I begin that way because that's how Jesus talked. He talked about realities that are right here right now. And so my assumption is that love wins. Love creates freedom. Love always demands freedom. And so we are free to choose. And this freedom has consequences. You can resist and reject this love, both in your own experience of it and in the ways in which you refuse to extend it to others, and you can receive it and pass it on to others, which seems to me to be the center of what Jesus keeps bringing up. Love God. Love others.

So love demands freedom. Freedom has consequences and then it also creates all sorts of possibilities. And so my experience has been that the love of God that Jesus came to give us and show us and teach us about, when you say yes to it, all sorts of things happen that you could never have dreamed up on your own.

Freedom and consequences and possibilities. And if we can choose these realities now, that Jesus came to offer us and show us, then I assume that when you die, you can continue to choose these realities because love can't co-opt the human heart's ability to decide.

But after you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation.

When I was reading the book again, I kept thinking of that line from a U2 song -- "We're packing a suitcase for a place none of us has been" -- and is that heaven? Is that the kingdom of God? What are we talking about? And as you said, this is totally speculation even though we get glimpses of it in scripture: Where are we going after we die?

I think it's important to point out that in the Hebrew consciousness, out of which the Christian faith flows, it was always Earth is where the action is, and that for millions and millions of people in our modern world, the fundamental Christian message they were taught is about evacuation. The highest form of spiritual practice is escape, essentially.

Rapture practice!

That's been hard wired into their consciousness. Jesus is how you get somewhere else. And that is not the central narrative of the scriptures, which over and over and over refer to this place as our "home." The central story is a God who loves the world, calls it good, and has set about a restoration/renewal/redemption/reconciliation/rescue effort. (I'm trying to think of more words that start with 'R'.)

It's a very, very important distinction because it leads to all sorts of things. How you understand that arc -- if you believe that the real issue is just how not to get left behind, then why work to care for the earth? Why make a big deal about how many nuclear bombs we're stockpiling?

And that's why these issues do matter. Heaven and hell can be these kind of vague, esoteric sort of things that Bible people do when they have time on their hands, which actually have huge consequences for how you live and move in the world right now.

Can you tell me the short version of where the slogan, "love wins," comes from?

The slogan started with a sermon that I did -- something about the Jesus-way versus the Caesar-way, and that the resurrection was a vindication of the Jesus-way over and against the Caesar-way.

There was this dominant, violent coercive power that was crushing everybody in its sight and Jesus comes along to offer a whole other way of understanding power and offers himself. And that the resurrection was a vindication of a whole new way of understanding how to be in the world.

So it was some long historical Jesus-resurrection-Caesar-type sermon. And I talked about the practicality of how the universe actually works and so then I made these stickers up and at the end of the service I handed them out -- these "Love Wins" stickers. That was years ago and somehow the phrase just exploded.

I remember going to see a band at a local club and there was a serious heckler that would not leave the band alone and they invited him to the front of the crowd -- it was one of those moments where the whole audience went totally silent. I was like, I cannot believe they're not only acknowledging this heckler, but the singer invited him up to the front of the stage's barricade area and he says, "I just wanna tell you right now, I just wanna tell you right now: Love wins." It was one of those moments -- I can't even explain. I think that band is at SXSW -- the Bangups they're called. They're awesome.

So the phrase had just extraordinary traction.

I've had that sticker on my car for years. Strangers in traffic often give me the thumbs up or yell asking where they can get one.

Yeah, so I've had this content knocking around my head and heart for about five years -- knowing it was a book. And I thought, oh the book's called this or the book's called that -- and then all of a sudden what I was actually trying to get at was the freedom of choice, and that when you begin with God is love, a lot of questions about heaven and hell and who goes where

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: tdoanesw

03-19-2011 @ 8:52am

It's nice to read an interview where the interviewer is not aggresively trying to beat Rob up or twist his words. Wow: what an inquisitioner that Bashir guy was. Rob handled it really, really well, but whew. I've been writing about my own surmises about the historical strain that I think some of Rob's thoughts are coming out of. Worked on the thing all night. If anyone's interested in reading it, check it out: http://g0spel0fj0hn.com/2011/0...

by: Cliff

03-18-2011 @ 7:42pm

Would you disagree with Rob Bell, then, that in the end God's love will melt everyone's heart and cause everyone to saved (even if it has to be after a period of self-inflicted "hell")? I'm trying to understand how Rob can lift up how "love always allows us to choose" and also speak of the irresistible effects of love. Seems to me he can't have it both ways.

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 12:45pm

I'll admit I don't understand everything Rob Bell is trying to say. I don't know whether he's just being deliberately vague or whether it's a result of my old bean not working heard enough (probably both). The only time I feel he's being absolutely clear is when he's rejecting certain attitudes found among some Christians ("rapture practice" Christians, Christians who seem to know for sure that certain people are burning in hell, hell is for "those people" Christians, etc). I'm glad he's criticizing these attitudes because I think those who adopt them are missing a huge part of Jesus' message, but it's too bad he's not more clear about what the alternative attitude is other than vague phrases like "love wins."

I definitely agree with Bell that there are going to be all sorts of surprises in heaven and God, because he's God, can be merciful to anyone. But I also think the people who say with certainty "of course the Dali Lama is going to heaven, after all, look what a good man he is" have just as many theological problems as those who say "of course Gandhi is burning in Hell, after all he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior." I don't know where the Dali Lama is going and I don't know where Gandhi is and neither does anyone else on earth.

I like Bell's creative word "inexclusivity." He's right that Jesus is very exclusive and inclusive at the same time. But I don't understand why a little bit later in the interview he seems to reject as "psychologically unbearable" that God is merciful at the same time He is a God of justice and will be exclusive when it comes to heaven.

In the end, I guess I don't know what all the hubbub is about. What's so significant about Rob Bell and what he's saying? If he's saying simply that some Christians focus too much on heaven and hell and the afterlife, that's fine and good, but it's been said before many times by many different people. If that is all he's saying I don't think his book would create this much controversy. If he's saying something more, he's not being very clear about what it is.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 1:07pm

"But after you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation."

Everybody seems to forget this. We badly about the names "Heaven" and "Hell," but we really don't know what they mean. Rob Bell is trying to convey an idea of universal salvation in this world AND the next, by which freely choosing souls, in God's Universe, eventually come around to Godself, no matter how long or how far they stray. Obviously, this isn't palatable to some hellfire mongers, but this is actually a very old eschatological position. If you want to call it heresy, go ahead -- but look up Rob Bell's sources first!

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 2:19pm

I think Bell's right when he says what happens after life is in the realm of speculation. It's important to remember this, which is why I wrote above that anyone who says "so and so is definitely in Hell or Heaven" is on equally shaky ground.

But I'm not sure what you mean by freely choosing souls come around to Godself. If we're free to choose God or reject Him doesn't that mean that some people don't eventually come around? Does "universal salvation" in your mind mean everyone will be "saved" regardless of what they choose or merely that God has the ability to show mercy to anyone, regardless of whether they call themselves a Christian or "accept Christ (using this phrase as evangelical Christians do)" but it doesn't necessarily mean He will.

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 9:15pm

I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying, so I don't have a problem with what he's saying and there doesn't seem to be a contradiction to me - we are reading it very differently, it seems...

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 8:09pm

Like Rob Bell said, Sam, "When you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation." But I do beclieve that, as my church's Sunday liturgy says, the Lord reconciled all people to himself in the Lamb.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-24-2011 @ 12:12am

Again, Sam, I'm sorry for that rude answer I made. This is something I will think about every time I get to blogging, or phoning, or talking face to face! Mea maxima culpa!

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 10:32pm

Jennifer,
Thanks for your response. But what does it mean to be reconciled in the Lamb?

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-20-2011 @ 5:06am

Hoo boy! Read the blinkin' book!

by: choctaw_chris

03-19-2011 @ 1:09am

@Patricia, "God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing".

I have grave reservations about that sentence. It sounds good but your use of 'grace', 'ultimate' and 'choice' are questionable.

Does God give us grace to make the right choice or does the Grace of God allow us to make the right choice? There's a subtle but significant distinction.

Does the clay ultimately choose to be a pot or is it the potter who has the last word? Definition of ultimate: maximum; decisive; conclusive. If there is a 'but' in the sentence, God will always have the casting vote.

Humans are notoriously bad at choosing. When the Berlin Wall fell Margaret Thatcher said "When people have the freedom to choose they will chose freedom". I knew instinctively that she was wrong. They will choose slavery like the Israelites did in the desert. When Adam had the freedom to choose he chose death. If we are the ones to do the choosing we are doomed.

We won't always have a choice if the parable of the seven virgins has any validity. Jesus tells us that there will come a time when we will have to bear the consequence of our choices. Noah spent 100 years building the Ark but when the day came God closed the door. When Esau chose to give away his inheritance he couldn't bring about a change of heart. When Judas realized what he had done he killed himself.

It doesn't make pretty reading but unless the Bible has changed since I last read it I can't see an escape clause. I don't want anyone to go to hell and I think the doctrine of eternal torment is hideous but God is sovereign and we have no choice in the matter.

by: SamHamilton

03-20-2011 @ 6:00pm

Sorry to bother you with questions. You sidestepped my original questions by quoting your liturgy and then when I asked what it meant you told me read Bell's book. I'm sorry I asked.

by: tdoanesw

03-19-2011 @ 8:52am

It's nice to read an interview where the interviewer is not aggresively trying to beat Rob up or twist his words. Wow: what an inquisitioner that Bashir guy was. Rob handled it really, really well, but whew. I've been writing about my own surmises about the historical strain that I think some of Rob's thoughts are coming out of. Worked on the thing all night. If anyone's interested in reading it, check it out: http://g0spel0fj0hn.com/2011/0...

by: liberalinlove

03-20-2011 @ 9:25pm

For a long, long time I thought my efforts to choose God's gift of salvation had saved me. Trusting in my own ability to accept the message, understand it, walk it out in my daily living falls woefully short. Without the gift of God's all consuming Love I have nothing.

Responding to love over fear, to relationship over religion, to my inability over His ability has captured my heart and I am in awe that He holds me in the palm of his hand and has promised to never let me go.

by: Mountain

03-20-2011 @ 9:29pm

I'm not sure what Rob Bell means by it, but "reconciled in the Lamb" tracks with the words "accepted in the Beloved," mentioned in Ephesians. We need to be covered with the imputed righteousness of Christ, God's unspeakable Gift to us; and that covering is realized when we simply place our trust in Him as a child would. As Scripture states in three of the four gospels "unless you receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, you will not enter therein." What is required of us is simple. Understanding it is beyond the ability of our finite minds.

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 12:45pm

I'll admit I don't understand everything Rob Bell is trying to say. I don't know whether he's just being deliberately vague or whether it's a result of my old bean not working heard enough (probably both). The only time I feel he's being absolutely clear is when he's rejecting certain attitudes found among some Christians ("rapture practice" Christians, Christians who seem to know for sure that certain people are burning in hell, hell is for "those people" Christians, etc). I'm glad he's criticizing these attitudes because I think those who adopt them are missing a huge part of Jesus' message, but it's too bad he's not more clear about what the alternative attitude is other than vague phrases like "love wins."

I definitely agree with Bell that there are going to be all sorts of surprises in heaven and God, because he's God, can be merciful to anyone. But I also think the people who say with certainty "of course the Dali Lama is going to heaven, after all, look what a good man he is" have just as many theological problems as those who say "of course Gandhi is burning in Hell, after all he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior." I don't know where the Dali Lama is going and I don't know where Gandhi is and neither does anyone else on earth.

I like Bell's creative word "inexclusivity." He's right that Jesus is very exclusive and inclusive at the same time. But I don't understand why a little bit later in the interview he seems to reject as "psychologically unbearable" that God is merciful at the same time He is a God of justice and will be exclusive when it comes to heaven.

In the end, I guess I don't know what all the hubbub is about. What's so significant about Rob Bell and what he's saying? If he's saying simply that some Christians focus too much on heaven and hell and the afterlife, that's fine and good, but it's been said before many times by many different people. If that is all he's saying I don't think his book would create this much controversy. If he's saying something more, he's not being very clear about what it is.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 1:07pm

"But after you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation."

Everybody seems to forget this. We badly about the names "Heaven" and "Hell," but we really don't know what they mean. Rob Bell is trying to convey an idea of universal salvation in this world AND the next, by which freely choosing souls, in God's Universe, eventually come around to Godself, no matter how long or how far they stray. Obviously, this isn't palatable to some hellfire mongers, but this is actually a very old eschatological position. If you want to call it heresy, go ahead -- but look up Rob Bell's sources first!

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 2:19pm

I think Bell's right when he says what happens after life is in the realm of speculation. It's important to remember this, which is why I wrote above that anyone who says "so and so is definitely in Hell or Heaven" is on equally shaky ground.

But I'm not sure what you mean by freely choosing souls come around to Godself. If we're free to choose God or reject Him doesn't that mean that some people don't eventually come around? Does "universal salvation" in your mind mean everyone will be "saved" regardless of what they choose or merely that God has the ability to show mercy to anyone, regardless of whether they call themselves a Christian or "accept Christ (using this phrase as evangelical Christians do)" but it doesn't necessarily mean He will.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-21-2011 @ 4:34am

I'm sorry, too; I should not have been so rude. But what I meant to say will be said a lot better by someone, maybe Rob Bell, maybe someone closer to your liking, who, instead of having to grub for a living at a mall drugstore, has been able to take the time to study and sort out these thorny eschatological issues in divinity school. This privilege is increasingly available only to middle- and upper-income Americans, not low-wage earners like me.

So much for the pity trip, and Jesus forgive me! I meant, and I think Rob did, too, that, no matter how far the soul strays, either before or after death, God and His way eventually start to look better and better; the call of His love grows ever stronger and stronger, until, finally, even the most pustulant monster is reconciled to his or her Creator. I did not invent this view of the Last Things, and neither did Bell.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 8:09pm

Like Rob Bell said, Sam, "When you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation." But I do beclieve that, as my church's Sunday liturgy says, the Lord reconciled all people to himself in the Lamb.

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 10:32pm

Jennifer,
Thanks for your response. But what does it mean to be reconciled in the Lamb?

by: duhsciple

03-24-2011 @ 9:33pm

As I hear Rob Bell, he is arguing for "restorative" versus "vindictive" judgment. Or, another way to say it is this, "healing" judgment versus "punishing" judgment. Many cannot imagine judgment that does not zing and sting and zap "bad people" in a vengeful way. I think it is a good idea, though, to really consider the concept of "judgment leading to healing" which is another way of saying that "love wins."

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-20-2011 @ 5:06am

Hoo boy! Read the blinkin' book!

by: Tim Temple

03-24-2011 @ 11:42pm

Just as in Jesus' time, there are Christian Pharisees and there are Christian Sadducees today. The Pharisees go to absurd lengths in superficial legalism, way beyond where God goes. The Sadducees dismiss heaven and collude with the worldly politics. They both wanted to kill Jesus for failing to agree with them.

In Matthew 5, Jesus showed that some people would actually be given greater reward in Heaven, not by legalism but by inner qualities. Jesus praised John the Baptist as the greatest non-Christian, but He went on to say the least Christian has a greater standing in heaven than John the Baptist. So much for Prince Siddhartha and Mahatma Ghandi who are less than John the Baptist!

God made the rules for His universe to run by and for His humans to live by. He is Absolute Justice in heaven and earth. Within His own rules of justice, He is also absolute love toward humans. He is the only one who can pull this off. But we must comply with His justice by submitting to Jesus who was tortured to death to make a loophole for us in His law.

For those who don't like God's law and want to make their own rules, "God is not mocked. Whatsoever you sow, you shall also reap."

by: SamHamilton

03-20-2011 @ 6:00pm

Sorry to bother you with questions. You sidestepped my original questions by quoting your liturgy and then when I asked what it meant you told me read Bell's book. I'm sorry I asked.

by: Ankaboot

03-21-2011 @ 6:26pm

There is a word in the Arabic language that means "to restore a thing to its original nature and condition." That word is "salama," from which comes the words "Salaam," ("Peace!"), "silm" ("a religion of peace"), and "Islam."

So when Rob Bell talks about "restoration/renewal/redemption/reconciliation/rescue," I recognize it immediately. "Religion" is the means by which we can restore our human nature ~ which is "loving" in its original condition and by definition. What we need to be "rescued" from is ourselves.

by: liberalinlove

03-20-2011 @ 9:25pm

For a long, long time I thought my efforts to choose God's gift of salvation had saved me. Trusting in my own ability to accept the message, understand it, walk it out in my daily living falls woefully short. Without the gift of God's all consuming Love I have nothing.

Responding to love over fear, to relationship over religion, to my inability over His ability has captured my heart and I am in awe that He holds me in the palm of his hand and has promised to never let me go.

by: Mountain

03-20-2011 @ 9:29pm

I'm not sure what Rob Bell means by it, but "reconciled in the Lamb" tracks with the words "accepted in the Beloved," mentioned in Ephesians. We need to be covered with the imputed righteousness of Christ, God's unspeakable Gift to us; and that covering is realized when we simply place our trust in Him as a child would. As Scripture states in three of the four gospels "unless you receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, you will not enter therein." What is required of us is simple. Understanding it is beyond the ability of our finite minds.

by: duhsciple

03-24-2011 @ 9:33pm

As I hear Rob Bell, he is arguing for "restorative" versus "vindictive" judgment. Or, another way to say it is this, "healing" judgment versus "punishing" judgment. Many cannot imagine judgment that does not zing and sting and zap "bad people" in a vengeful way. I think it is a good idea, though, to really consider the concept of "judgment leading to healing" which is another way of saying that "love wins."

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-21-2011 @ 4:34am

I'm sorry, too; I should not have been so rude. But what I meant to say will be said a lot better by someone, maybe Rob Bell, maybe someone closer to your liking, who, instead of having to grub for a living at a mall drugstore, has been able to take the time to study and sort out these thorny eschatological issues in divinity school. This privilege is increasingly available only to middle- and upper-income Americans, not low-wage earners like me.

So much for the pity trip, and Jesus forgive me! I meant, and I think Rob did, too, that, no matter how far the soul strays, either before or after death, God and His way eventually start to look better and better; the call of His love grows ever stronger and stronger, until, finally, even the most pustulant monster is reconciled to his or her Creator. I did not invent this view of the Last Things, and neither did Bell.

by: PastorBrad

05-01-2011 @ 6:12am

Check his sources. Very much proof-texting and ripping Luther quote out of a letter that actually says the opposite of what Bell conveys in his book. It's a nice story- Moralistic Therapuedic Deism. Bell does a great job on certain areas, but he made God safe.
The question "Does God get what he wants?" is a straw man! And he answers it with what we all want to hear. Too bad it's not done with sound exegesis and accurate history. Oh, and yes I just finished the book!

by: Med-Updates.com

04-19-2011 @ 12:59am

Frank Schaeffer: Faith in President Obama Is Being -- And Will Be -- Vindicated...

If you think that President Obama played the Republicans in the last lame duck Congress like a violin just wait until after 2012 when the rotten Tea Party will be about as relevant as 1930s hate monger radio priest Charles Coughlin (the "father" of ...

by: PastorBrad

05-01-2011 @ 6:12am

Check his sources. Very much proof-texting and ripping Luther quote out of a letter that actually says the opposite of what Bell conveys in his book. It's a nice story- Moralistic Therapuedic Deism. Bell does a great job on certain areas, but he made God safe.
The question "Does God get what he wants?" is a straw man! And he answers it with what we all want to hear. Too bad it's not done with sound exegesis and accurate history. Oh, and yes I just finished the book!

by: Tim Temple

03-24-2011 @ 11:42pm

Just as in Jesus' time, there are Christian Pharisees and there are Christian Sadducees today. The Pharisees go to absurd lengths in superficial legalism, way beyond where God goes. The Sadducees dismiss heaven and collude with the worldly politics. They both wanted to kill Jesus for failing to agree with them.

In Matthew 5, Jesus showed that some people would actually be given greater reward in Heaven, not by legalism but by inner qualities. Jesus praised John the Baptist as the greatest non-Christian, but He went on to say the least Christian has a greater standing in heaven than John the Baptist. So much for Prince Siddhartha and Mahatma Ghandi who are less than John the Baptist!

God made the rules for His universe to run by and for His humans to live by. He is Absolute Justice in heaven and earth. Within His own rules of justice, He is also absolute love toward humans. He is the only one who can pull this off. But we must comply with His justice by submitting to Jesus who was tortured to death to make a loophole for us in His law.

For those who don't like God's law and want to make their own rules, "God is not mocked. Whatsoever you sow, you shall also reap."

by: Ankaboot

03-21-2011 @ 6:26pm

There is a word in the Arabic language that means "to restore a thing to its original nature and condition." That word is "salama," from which comes the words "Salaam," ("Peace!"), "silm" ("a religion of peace"), and "Islam."

So when Rob Bell talks about "restoration/renewal/redemption/reconciliation/rescue," I recognize it immediately. "Religion" is the means by which we can restore our human nature ~ which is "loving" in its original condition and by definition. What we need to be "rescued" from is ourselves.

by: PastorBrad

05-01-2011 @ 6:12am

Check his sources. Very much proof-texting and ripping Luther quote out of a letter that actually says the opposite of what Bell conveys in his book. It's a nice story- Moralistic Therapuedic Deism. Bell does a great job on certain areas, but he made God safe.
The question "Does God get what he wants?" is a straw man! And he answers it with what we all want to hear. Too bad it's not done with sound exegesis and accurate history. Oh, and yes I just finished the book!

by: PastorBrad

05-01-2011 @ 6:12am

Check his sources. Very much proof-texting and ripping Luther quote out of a letter that actually says the opposite of what Bell conveys in his book. It's a nice story- Moralistic Therapuedic Deism. Bell does a great job on certain areas, but he made God safe.
The question "Does God get what he wants?" is a straw man! And he answers it with what we all want to hear. Too bad it's not done with sound exegesis and accurate history. Oh, and yes I just finished the book!

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 12:49am

Jennifer Nolan -- If it's any consolation, I don't think one's theology ris very important. People have been arguing about choice and free will for eons. IT's really an attempt to understand the unknowable, at least in our present state of ignorance. I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving relationship with Him. I believe that as long as I strive to live by His golden rule, I can't go too far wrong. I know that my life is better after surrendering to His will than it was before. I know He forgives me each time I go wrong and keeps trying to make me understand the difference between His will and mine. It's simple enough for a seven year old to understand -- and most of the rest of us.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 2:38am

I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us

to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving

relationship with Him.

God makes it possible for the simple-minded to Know Him. The more

someone complicates the simple, for example by trying to gain a

"rational understanding" in linguistic terms, the more difficult it

becomes to Know Him.

by: dannycunningham

03-23-2011 @ 3:31am

He has been reading NT Wright. The idea that judgment needs to thought of as a good word is from Wright. But, Bell goes way to far with it. The idea that judgment is a good thing is related to the idea that it brings and end to what is wrong and how the wronged/oppressed will be receive relief. Bell seems to miss the point that judgment will include the justice due those who oppress. The cry of the martyrs in revelation would need to be either ignored or rephrased to"How long,Sovereign Master,holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood, by saving them and including them in our number?" Rev 6:10 as revised by Rob Bell. He says he sees hell everywhere in things like rape ect... but can;t imagine that a Good God would judge the rapist.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 3:45am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious. And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works. Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us. Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code. Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 4:36am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious.

Happens all the time. We tend to "overthink" things, especially when we want something that hasn't already been given to us.

And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works.

We can't possibly understand how God thinks and works. The best we can do is reach something of what God has given us in the way of correct understanding of human thinking and work. People talk of "The Mind of God" as if the human mind is capable of comprehending it. But God has created a "Mind of God" for us to know, that we are capable of knowing, and we can reach the original state of human existence, where Adam "knew" that "Mind of God" because he was in direct communion with God ~ whatever Adam regarded, he knew already everything that God knew about that thing that the human mind is capable of knowing.

Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us.

We recognize ourselves as unique and distinct individuals with discrete thoughts, feelings, and "personality." But many do not attribute those same things to God, instead making of Him a person-less abstraction, and say such things as "God is Love." But God is The Loving ~ "love" is something He does, not something He "is." And we can know Him, just as we can know any other companion, although not in the same way, but then unlike any other companion, He is always Present, and nearer to each of us than any other companion could possibly be.

Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code.

I wouldn't compare what God has given us for our benefit to the rationalization of organized crime for armed robbery.

But He says "And none differed until the truth came to them, seeking advantage."

Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

Many remain lost in the labyrinthine maze they've made of their own minds because of some disease in their hearts.

by: alexgreen

03-18-2011 @ 4:52pm

Great interview, Rob comes through very gracious and gentle, I think I'd like to have dinner with him one day.

by: revtk

03-18-2011 @ 5:29pm

There are deeply important theological concepts being expressed here, and I'm not talking about doctrinal statements or formulas of atonement.

Bell says, "Love creates freedom". It is elegant, concise language for what theologians of the cross have been trying to say for centuries. Many churches confess each week that we are "bondage" or "captivity" to sin. We have no freedom to choose to follow God. It is only God's gracious move towards us, God's incarnation in this world, God's selfless act of love, that empowers us to live in the freedom that involves embracing and actually living in the freedom God intends.

This freedom "from" the bondage of sin, then gives us a freedom "for" loving God and serving our neighbor. Being saved in the biblical sense, is not just an escape from earth. It is "sozo". It is rescue from fear now and in this life. It is transformation into a life of JOY, not because the gospel of prosperity blesses us, but rather because the good news of the cross means resurrection for death in all of its forms, including those we die to everyday.

by: jwoodroof

03-18-2011 @ 5:58pm

"That's how love works. Love always allows us to choose."

The Ultimate Love, the gospel, rescued us from our choosing. If we can choose to recieve God's love and be a part of it in the world, apart from his transformational presence in us and his promise of a new kingdom coming, we nulify the gospel message. We make obsolete Paul's words throughout scripture, but especially in ephesians 2: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved!" ch2 v4-5
My broken and distorted motivations for living and being human keep me from ever choosing to love in any kind of redemptive salvation way. How can I call God's abandonment of me to my 'freedom' and release of mercy, love?? Furthermore, what about my sinful and desperate for Christ self would motivate me to make choices to love God or others, apart from his desperate love and death for me?

I want to give Rob Bell more credit than that, but his final remark tastes sadly of a Joel Osteenesque best life now departure from the gospel, from grace, and from the redemption God mercifully pours out for us.

May we never lose sight of the glorious grace of Christ in our questions and desire to know and live rightly in the world he has made.

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 7:30pm

I don't believe God ever takes away our freedom to choose. If we were rescued from choice, how to explain all the extremely poor choices - sometimes extremely evil choices - we Christians make on a daily, hourly, minute-ly basis?

How to explain how so many Christians choose to get so caught up in dogma, and judgment, and rigidity and exclusivity, instead of faith, love, flexibility and inclusivity?

We always have had, and always will have, the choice of how to respond/not respond to God's love. God gives us the choice, and God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 12:49am

Jennifer Nolan -- If it's any consolation, I don't think one's theology ris very important. People have been arguing about choice and free will for eons. IT's really an attempt to understand the unknowable, at least in our present state of ignorance. I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving relationship with Him. I believe that as long as I strive to live by His golden rule, I can't go too far wrong. I know that my life is better after surrendering to His will than it was before. I know He forgives me each time I go wrong and keeps trying to make me understand the difference between His will and mine. It's simple enough for a seven year old to understand -- and most of the rest of us.

by: Cliff

03-18-2011 @ 7:42pm

Would you disagree with Rob Bell, then, that in the end God's love will melt everyone's heart and cause everyone to saved (even if it has to be after a period of self-inflicted "hell")? I'm trying to understand how Rob can lift up how "love always allows us to choose" and also speak of the irresistible effects of love. Seems to me he can't have it both ways.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 2:38am

I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us

to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving

relationship with Him.

God makes it possible for the simple-minded to Know Him. The more

someone complicates the simple, for example by trying to gain a

"rational understanding" in linguistic terms, the more difficult it

becomes to Know Him.

by: dannycunningham

03-23-2011 @ 3:31am

He has been reading NT Wright. The idea that judgment needs to thought of as a good word is from Wright. But, Bell goes way to far with it. The idea that judgment is a good thing is related to the idea that it brings and end to what is wrong and how the wronged/oppressed will be receive relief. Bell seems to miss the point that judgment will include the justice due those who oppress. The cry of the martyrs in revelation would need to be either ignored or rephrased to"How long,Sovereign Master,holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood, by saving them and including them in our number?" Rev 6:10 as revised by Rob Bell. He says he sees hell everywhere in things like rape ect... but can;t imagine that a Good God would judge the rapist.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: alexgreen

03-18-2011 @ 4:52pm

Great interview, Rob comes through very gracious and gentle, I think I'd like to have dinner with him one day.

by: alexgreen

03-18-2011 @ 4:52pm

Great interview, Rob comes through very gracious and gentle, I think I'd like to have dinner with him one day.

by: revtk

03-18-2011 @ 5:29pm

There are deeply important theological concepts being expressed here, and I'm not talking about doctrinal statements or formulas of atonement.

Bell says, "Love creates freedom". It is elegant, concise language for what theologians of the cross have been trying to say for centuries. Many churches confess each week that we are "bondage" or "captivity" to sin. We have no freedom to choose to follow God. It is only God's gracious move towards us, God's incarnation in this world, God's selfless act of love, that empowers us to live in the freedom that involves embracing and actually living in the freedom God intends.

This freedom "from" the bondage of sin, then gives us a freedom "for" loving God and serving our neighbor. Being saved in the biblical sense, is not just an escape from earth. It is "sozo". It is rescue from fear now and in this life. It is transformation into a life of JOY, not because the gospel of prosperity blesses us, but rather because the good news of the cross means resurrection for death in all of its forms, including those we die to everyday.

by: revtk

03-18-2011 @ 5:29pm

There are deeply important theological concepts being expressed here, and I'm not talking about doctrinal statements or formulas of atonement.

Bell says, "Love creates freedom". It is elegant, concise language for what theologians of the cross have been trying to say for centuries. Many churches confess each week that we are "bondage" or "captivity" to sin. We have no freedom to choose to follow God. It is only God's gracious move towards us, God's incarnation in this world, God's selfless act of love, that empowers us to live in the freedom that involves embracing and actually living in the freedom God intends.

This freedom "from" the bondage of sin, then gives us a freedom "for" loving God and serving our neighbor. Being saved in the biblical sense, is not just an escape from earth. It is "sozo". It is rescue from fear now and in this life. It is transformation into a life of JOY, not because the gospel of prosperity blesses us, but rather because the good news of the cross means resurrection for death in all of its forms, including those we die to everyday.

by: jwoodroof

03-18-2011 @ 5:58pm

"That's how love works. Love always allows us to choose."

The Ultimate Love, the gospel, rescued us from our choosing. If we can choose to recieve God's love and be a part of it in the world, apart from his transformational presence in us and his promise of a new kingdom coming, we nulify the gospel message. We make obsolete Paul's words throughout scripture, but especially in ephesians 2: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved!" ch2 v4-5
My broken and distorted motivations for living and being human keep me from ever choosing to love in any kind of redemptive salvation way. How can I call God's abandonment of me to my 'freedom' and release of mercy, love?? Furthermore, what about my sinful and desperate for Christ self would motivate me to make choices to love God or others, apart from his desperate love and death for me?

I want to give Rob Bell more credit than that, but his final remark tastes sadly of a Joel Osteenesque best life now departure from the gospel, from grace, and from the redemption God mercifully pours out for us.

May we never lose sight of the glorious grace of Christ in our questions and desire to know and live rightly in the world he has made.

by: jwoodroof

03-18-2011 @ 5:58pm

"That's how love works. Love always allows us to choose."

The Ultimate Love, the gospel, rescued us from our choosing. If we can choose to recieve God's love and be a part of it in the world, apart from his transformational presence in us and his promise of a new kingdom coming, we nulify the gospel message. We make obsolete Paul's words throughout scripture, but especially in ephesians 2: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ- by grace you have been saved!" ch2 v4-5
My broken and distorted motivations for living and being human keep me from ever choosing to love in any kind of redemptive salvation way. How can I call God's abandonment of me to my 'freedom' and release of mercy, love?? Furthermore, what about my sinful and desperate for Christ self would motivate me to make choices to love God or others, apart from his desperate love and death for me?

I want to give Rob Bell more credit than that, but his final remark tastes sadly of a Joel Osteenesque best life now departure from the gospel, from grace, and from the redemption God mercifully pours out for us.

May we never lose sight of the glorious grace of Christ in our questions and desire to know and live rightly in the world he has made.

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 7:30pm

I don't believe God ever takes away our freedom to choose. If we were rescued from choice, how to explain all the extremely poor choices - sometimes extremely evil choices - we Christians make on a daily, hourly, minute-ly basis?

How to explain how so many Christians choose to get so caught up in dogma, and judgment, and rigidity and exclusivity, instead of faith, love, flexibility and inclusivity?

We always have had, and always will have, the choice of how to respond/not respond to God's love. God gives us the choice, and God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing.

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 7:30pm

I don't believe God ever takes away our freedom to choose. If we were rescued from choice, how to explain all the extremely poor choices - sometimes extremely evil choices - we Christians make on a daily, hourly, minute-ly basis?

How to explain how so many Christians choose to get so caught up in dogma, and judgment, and rigidity and exclusivity, instead of faith, love, flexibility and inclusivity?

We always have had, and always will have, the choice of how to respond/not respond to God's love. God gives us the choice, and God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing.

by: Cliff

03-18-2011 @ 7:42pm

Would you disagree with Rob Bell, then, that in the end God's love will melt everyone's heart and cause everyone to saved (even if it has to be after a period of self-inflicted "hell")? I'm trying to understand how Rob can lift up how "love always allows us to choose" and also speak of the irresistible effects of love. Seems to me he can't have it both ways.

by: Cliff

03-18-2011 @ 7:42pm

Would you disagree with Rob Bell, then, that in the end God's love will melt everyone's heart and cause everyone to saved (even if it has to be after a period of self-inflicted "hell")? I'm trying to understand how Rob can lift up how "love always allows us to choose" and also speak of the irresistible effects of love. Seems to me he can't have it both ways.

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 9:15pm

I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying, so I don't have a problem with what he's saying and there doesn't seem to be a contradiction to me - we are reading it very differently, it seems...

by: Patricia

03-18-2011 @ 9:15pm

I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying, so I don't have a problem with what he's saying and there doesn't seem to be a contradiction to me - we are reading it very differently, it seems...

by: choctaw_chris

03-19-2011 @ 1:09am

@Patricia, "God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing".

I have grave reservations about that sentence. It sounds good but your use of 'grace', 'ultimate' and 'choice' are questionable.

Does God give us grace to make the right choice or does the Grace of God allow us to make the right choice? There's a subtle but significant distinction.

Does the clay ultimately choose to be a pot or is it the potter who has the last word? Definition of ultimate: maximum; decisive; conclusive. If there is a 'but' in the sentence, God will always have the casting vote.

Humans are notoriously bad at choosing. When the Berlin Wall fell Margaret Thatcher said "When people have the freedom to choose they will chose freedom". I knew instinctively that she was wrong. They will choose slavery like the Israelites did in the desert. When Adam had the freedom to choose he chose death. If we are the ones to do the choosing we are doomed.

We won't always have a choice if the parable of the seven virgins has any validity. Jesus tells us that there will come a time when we will have to bear the consequence of our choices. Noah spent 100 years building the Ark but when the day came God closed the door. When Esau chose to give away his inheritance he couldn't bring about a change of heart. When Judas realized what he had done he killed himself.

It doesn't make pretty reading but unless the Bible has changed since I last read it I can't see an escape clause. I don't want anyone to go to hell and I think the doctrine of eternal torment is hideous but God is sovereign and we have no choice in the matter.

by: choctaw_chris

03-19-2011 @ 1:09am

@Patricia, "God gives us the grace to make the right choice, but we, ultimately, are the ones to do the choosing".

I have grave reservations about that sentence. It sounds good but your use of 'grace', 'ultimate' and 'choice' are questionable.

Does God give us grace to make the right choice or does the Grace of God allow us to make the right choice? There's a subtle but significant distinction.

Does the clay ultimately choose to be a pot or is it the potter who has the last word? Definition of ultimate: maximum; decisive; conclusive. If there is a 'but' in the sentence, God will always have the casting vote.

Humans are notoriously bad at choosing. When the Berlin Wall fell Margaret Thatcher said "When people have the freedom to choose they will chose freedom". I knew instinctively that she was wrong. They will choose slavery like the Israelites did in the desert. When Adam had the freedom to choose he chose death. If we are the ones to do the choosing we are doomed.

We won't always have a choice if the parable of the seven virgins has any validity. Jesus tells us that there will come a time when we will have to bear the consequence of our choices. Noah spent 100 years building the Ark but when the day came God closed the door. When Esau chose to give away his inheritance he couldn't bring about a change of heart. When Judas realized what he had done he killed himself.

It doesn't make pretty reading but unless the Bible has changed since I last read it I can't see an escape clause. I don't want anyone to go to hell and I think the doctrine of eternal torment is hideous but God is sovereign and we have no choice in the matter.

by: tdoanesw

03-19-2011 @ 8:52am

It's nice to read an interview where the interviewer is not aggresively trying to beat Rob up or twist his words. Wow: what an inquisitioner that Bashir guy was. Rob handled it really, really well, but whew. I've been writing about my own surmises about the historical strain that I think some of Rob's thoughts are coming out of. Worked on the thing all night. If anyone's interested in reading it, check it out: http://g0spel0fj0hn.com/2011/0...

by: tdoanesw

03-19-2011 @ 8:52am

It's nice to read an interview where the interviewer is not aggresively trying to beat Rob up or twist his words. Wow: what an inquisitioner that Bashir guy was. Rob handled it really, really well, but whew. I've been writing about my own surmises about the historical strain that I think some of Rob's thoughts are coming out of. Worked on the thing all night. If anyone's interested in reading it, check it out: http://g0spel0fj0hn.com/2011/0...

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 12:45pm

I'll admit I don't understand everything Rob Bell is trying to say. I don't know whether he's just being deliberately vague or whether it's a result of my old bean not working heard enough (probably both). The only time I feel he's being absolutely clear is when he's rejecting certain attitudes found among some Christians ("rapture practice" Christians, Christians who seem to know for sure that certain people are burning in hell, hell is for "those people" Christians, etc). I'm glad he's criticizing these attitudes because I think those who adopt them are missing a huge part of Jesus' message, but it's too bad he's not more clear about what the alternative attitude is other than vague phrases like "love wins."

I definitely agree with Bell that there are going to be all sorts of surprises in heaven and God, because he's God, can be merciful to anyone. But I also think the people who say with certainty "of course the Dali Lama is going to heaven, after all, look what a good man he is" have just as many theological problems as those who say "of course Gandhi is burning in Hell, after all he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior." I don't know where the Dali Lama is going and I don't know where Gandhi is and neither does anyone else on earth.

I like Bell's creative word "inexclusivity." He's right that Jesus is very exclusive and inclusive at the same time. But I don't understand why a little bit later in the interview he seems to reject as "psychologically unbearable" that God is merciful at the same time He is a God of justice and will be exclusive when it comes to heaven.

In the end, I guess I don't know what all the hubbub is about. What's so significant about Rob Bell and what he's saying? If he's saying simply that some Christians focus too much on heaven and hell and the afterlife, that's fine and good, but it's been said before many times by many different people. If that is all he's saying I don't think his book would create this much controversy. If he's saying something more, he's not being very clear about what it is.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 12:45pm

I'll admit I don't understand everything Rob Bell is trying to say. I don't know whether he's just being deliberately vague or whether it's a result of my old bean not working heard enough (probably both). The only time I feel he's being absolutely clear is when he's rejecting certain attitudes found among some Christians ("rapture practice" Christians, Christians who seem to know for sure that certain people are burning in hell, hell is for "those people" Christians, etc). I'm glad he's criticizing these attitudes because I think those who adopt them are missing a huge part of Jesus' message, but it's too bad he's not more clear about what the alternative attitude is other than vague phrases like "love wins."

I definitely agree with Bell that there are going to be all sorts of surprises in heaven and God, because he's God, can be merciful to anyone. But I also think the people who say with certainty "of course the Dali Lama is going to heaven, after all, look what a good man he is" have just as many theological problems as those who say "of course Gandhi is burning in Hell, after all he didn't accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior." I don't know where the Dali Lama is going and I don't know where Gandhi is and neither does anyone else on earth.

I like Bell's creative word "inexclusivity." He's right that Jesus is very exclusive and inclusive at the same time. But I don't understand why a little bit later in the interview he seems to reject as "psychologically unbearable" that God is merciful at the same time He is a God of justice and will be exclusive when it comes to heaven.

In the end, I guess I don't know what all the hubbub is about. What's so significant about Rob Bell and what he's saying? If he's saying simply that some Christians focus too much on heaven and hell and the afterlife, that's fine and good, but it's been said before many times by many different people. If that is all he's saying I don't think his book would create this much controversy. If he's saying something more, he's not being very clear about what it is.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 1:07pm

"But after you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation."

Everybody seems to forget this. We badly about the names "Heaven" and "Hell," but we really don't know what they mean. Rob Bell is trying to convey an idea of universal salvation in this world AND the next, by which freely choosing souls, in God's Universe, eventually come around to Godself, no matter how long or how far they stray. Obviously, this isn't palatable to some hellfire mongers, but this is actually a very old eschatological position. If you want to call it heresy, go ahead -- but look up Rob Bell's sources first!

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 1:07pm

"But after you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation."

Everybody seems to forget this. We badly about the names "Heaven" and "Hell," but we really don't know what they mean. Rob Bell is trying to convey an idea of universal salvation in this world AND the next, by which freely choosing souls, in God's Universe, eventually come around to Godself, no matter how long or how far they stray. Obviously, this isn't palatable to some hellfire mongers, but this is actually a very old eschatological position. If you want to call it heresy, go ahead -- but look up Rob Bell's sources first!

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 2:19pm

I think Bell's right when he says what happens after life is in the realm of speculation. It's important to remember this, which is why I wrote above that anyone who says "so and so is definitely in Hell or Heaven" is on equally shaky ground.

But I'm not sure what you mean by freely choosing souls come around to Godself. If we're free to choose God or reject Him doesn't that mean that some people don't eventually come around? Does "universal salvation" in your mind mean everyone will be "saved" regardless of what they choose or merely that God has the ability to show mercy to anyone, regardless of whether they call themselves a Christian or "accept Christ (using this phrase as evangelical Christians do)" but it doesn't necessarily mean He will.

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 2:19pm

I think Bell's right when he says what happens after life is in the realm of speculation. It's important to remember this, which is why I wrote above that anyone who says "so and so is definitely in Hell or Heaven" is on equally shaky ground.

But I'm not sure what you mean by freely choosing souls come around to Godself. If we're free to choose God or reject Him doesn't that mean that some people don't eventually come around? Does "universal salvation" in your mind mean everyone will be "saved" regardless of what they choose or merely that God has the ability to show mercy to anyone, regardless of whether they call themselves a Christian or "accept Christ (using this phrase as evangelical Christians do)" but it doesn't necessarily mean He will.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 8:09pm

Like Rob Bell said, Sam, "When you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation." But I do beclieve that, as my church's Sunday liturgy says, the Lord reconciled all people to himself in the Lamb.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-19-2011 @ 8:09pm

Like Rob Bell said, Sam, "When you die, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation." But I do beclieve that, as my church's Sunday liturgy says, the Lord reconciled all people to himself in the Lamb.

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 10:32pm

Jennifer,
Thanks for your response. But what does it mean to be reconciled in the Lamb?

by: SamHamilton

03-19-2011 @ 10:32pm

Jennifer,
Thanks for your response. But what does it mean to be reconciled in the Lamb?

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-20-2011 @ 5:06am

Hoo boy! Read the blinkin' book!

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-20-2011 @ 5:06am

Hoo boy! Read the blinkin' book!

by: SamHamilton

03-20-2011 @ 6:00pm

Sorry to bother you with questions. You sidestepped my original questions by quoting your liturgy and then when I asked what it meant you told me read Bell's book. I'm sorry I asked.

by: SamHamilton

03-20-2011 @ 6:00pm

Sorry to bother you with questions. You sidestepped my original questions by quoting your liturgy and then when I asked what it meant you told me read Bell's book. I'm sorry I asked.

by: liberalinlove

03-20-2011 @ 9:25pm

For a long, long time I thought my efforts to choose God's gift of salvation had saved me. Trusting in my own ability to accept the message, understand it, walk it out in my daily living falls woefully short. Without the gift of God's all consuming Love I have nothing.

Responding to love over fear, to relationship over religion, to my inability over His ability has captured my heart and I am in awe that He holds me in the palm of his hand and has promised to never let me go.

by: liberalinlove

03-20-2011 @ 9:25pm

For a long, long time I thought my efforts to choose God's gift of salvation had saved me. Trusting in my own ability to accept the message, understand it, walk it out in my daily living falls woefully short. Without the gift of God's all consuming Love I have nothing.

Responding to love over fear, to relationship over religion, to my inability over His ability has captured my heart and I am in awe that He holds me in the palm of his hand and has promised to never let me go.

by: Mountain

03-20-2011 @ 9:29pm

I'm not sure what Rob Bell means by it, but "reconciled in the Lamb" tracks with the words "accepted in the Beloved," mentioned in Ephesians. We need to be covered with the imputed righteousness of Christ, God's unspeakable Gift to us; and that covering is realized when we simply place our trust in Him as a child would. As Scripture states in three of the four gospels "unless you receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, you will not enter therein." What is required of us is simple. Understanding it is beyond the ability of our finite minds.

by: Mountain

03-20-2011 @ 9:29pm

I'm not sure what Rob Bell means by it, but "reconciled in the Lamb" tracks with the words "accepted in the Beloved," mentioned in Ephesians. We need to be covered with the imputed righteousness of Christ, God's unspeakable Gift to us; and that covering is realized when we simply place our trust in Him as a child would. As Scripture states in three of the four gospels "unless you receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a child, you will not enter therein." What is required of us is simple. Understanding it is beyond the ability of our finite minds.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-21-2011 @ 4:34am

I'm sorry, too; I should not have been so rude. But what I meant to say will be said a lot better by someone, maybe Rob Bell, maybe someone closer to your liking, who, instead of having to grub for a living at a mall drugstore, has been able to take the time to study and sort out these thorny eschatological issues in divinity school. This privilege is increasingly available only to middle- and upper-income Americans, not low-wage earners like me.

So much for the pity trip, and Jesus forgive me! I meant, and I think Rob did, too, that, no matter how far the soul strays, either before or after death, God and His way eventually start to look better and better; the call of His love grows ever stronger and stronger, until, finally, even the most pustulant monster is reconciled to his or her Creator. I did not invent this view of the Last Things, and neither did Bell.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-21-2011 @ 4:34am

I'm sorry, too; I should not have been so rude. But what I meant to say will be said a lot better by someone, maybe Rob Bell, maybe someone closer to your liking, who, instead of having to grub for a living at a mall drugstore, has been able to take the time to study and sort out these thorny eschatological issues in divinity school. This privilege is increasingly available only to middle- and upper-income Americans, not low-wage earners like me.

So much for the pity trip, and Jesus forgive me! I meant, and I think Rob did, too, that, no matter how far the soul strays, either before or after death, God and His way eventually start to look better and better; the call of His love grows ever stronger and stronger, until, finally, even the most pustulant monster is reconciled to his or her Creator. I did not invent this view of the Last Things, and neither did Bell.

by: Ankaboot

03-21-2011 @ 6:26pm

There is a word in the Arabic language that means "to restore a thing to its original nature and condition." That word is "salama," from which comes the words "Salaam," ("Peace!"), "silm" ("a religion of peace"), and "Islam."

So when Rob Bell talks about "restoration/renewal/redemption/reconciliation/rescue," I recognize it immediately. "Religion" is the means by which we can restore our human nature ~ which is "loving" in its original condition and by definition. What we need to be "rescued" from is ourselves.

by: Ankaboot

03-21-2011 @ 6:26pm

There is a word in the Arabic language that means "to restore a thing to its original nature and condition." That word is "salama," from which comes the words "Salaam," ("Peace!"), "silm" ("a religion of peace"), and "Islam."

So when Rob Bell talks about "restoration/renewal/redemption/reconciliation/rescue," I recognize it immediately. "Religion" is the means by which we can restore our human nature ~ which is "loving" in its original condition and by definition. What we need to be "rescued" from is ourselves.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 12:49am

Jennifer Nolan -- If it's any consolation, I don't think one's theology ris very important. People have been arguing about choice and free will for eons. IT's really an attempt to understand the unknowable, at least in our present state of ignorance. I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving relationship with Him. I believe that as long as I strive to live by His golden rule, I can't go too far wrong. I know that my life is better after surrendering to His will than it was before. I know He forgives me each time I go wrong and keeps trying to make me understand the difference between His will and mine. It's simple enough for a seven year old to understand -- and most of the rest of us.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 12:49am

Jennifer Nolan -- If it's any consolation, I don't think one's theology ris very important. People have been arguing about choice and free will for eons. IT's really an attempt to understand the unknowable, at least in our present state of ignorance. I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving relationship with Him. I believe that as long as I strive to live by His golden rule, I can't go too far wrong. I know that my life is better after surrendering to His will than it was before. I know He forgives me each time I go wrong and keeps trying to make me understand the difference between His will and mine. It's simple enough for a seven year old to understand -- and most of the rest of us.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 2:38am

I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us

to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving

relationship with Him.

God makes it possible for the simple-minded to Know Him. The more

someone complicates the simple, for example by trying to gain a

"rational understanding" in linguistic terms, the more difficult it

becomes to Know Him.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 2:38am

I think God makes it possible for even the most simple-minded of us

to understand what He wants of us and for us and to have a loving

relationship with Him.

God makes it possible for the simple-minded to Know Him. The more

someone complicates the simple, for example by trying to gain a

"rational understanding" in linguistic terms, the more difficult it

becomes to Know Him.

by: dannycunningham

03-23-2011 @ 3:31am

He has been reading NT Wright. The idea that judgment needs to thought of as a good word is from Wright. But, Bell goes way to far with it. The idea that judgment is a good thing is related to the idea that it brings and end to what is wrong and how the wronged/oppressed will be receive relief. Bell seems to miss the point that judgment will include the justice due those who oppress. The cry of the martyrs in revelation would need to be either ignored or rephrased to"How long,Sovereign Master,holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood, by saving them and including them in our number?" Rev 6:10 as revised by Rob Bell. He says he sees hell everywhere in things like rape ect... but can;t imagine that a Good God would judge the rapist.

by: dannycunningham

03-23-2011 @ 3:31am

He has been reading NT Wright. The idea that judgment needs to thought of as a good word is from Wright. But, Bell goes way to far with it. The idea that judgment is a good thing is related to the idea that it brings and end to what is wrong and how the wronged/oppressed will be receive relief. Bell seems to miss the point that judgment will include the justice due those who oppress. The cry of the martyrs in revelation would need to be either ignored or rephrased to"How long,Sovereign Master,holy and true, before you judge those who live on the earth and avenge our blood, by saving them and including them in our number?" Rev 6:10 as revised by Rob Bell. He says he sees hell everywhere in things like rape ect... but can;t imagine that a Good God would judge the rapist.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 3:45am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious. And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works. Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us. Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code. Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

by: scat

03-23-2011 @ 3:45am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious. And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works. Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us. Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code. Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 4:36am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious.

Happens all the time. We tend to "overthink" things, especially when we want something that hasn't already been given to us.

And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works.

We can't possibly understand how God thinks and works. The best we can do is reach something of what God has given us in the way of correct understanding of human thinking and work. People talk of "The Mind of God" as if the human mind is capable of comprehending it. But God has created a "Mind of God" for us to know, that we are capable of knowing, and we can reach the original state of human existence, where Adam "knew" that "Mind of God" because he was in direct communion with God ~ whatever Adam regarded, he knew already everything that God knew about that thing that the human mind is capable of knowing.

Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us.

We recognize ourselves as unique and distinct individuals with discrete thoughts, feelings, and "personality." But many do not attribute those same things to God, instead making of Him a person-less abstraction, and say such things as "God is Love." But God is The Loving ~ "love" is something He does, not something He "is." And we can know Him, just as we can know any other companion, although not in the same way, but then unlike any other companion, He is always Present, and nearer to each of us than any other companion could possibly be.

Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code.

I wouldn't compare what God has given us for our benefit to the rationalization of organized crime for armed robbery.

But He says "And none differed until the truth came to them, seeking advantage."

Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

Many remain lost in the labyrinthine maze they've made of their own minds because of some disease in their hearts.

by: Ankaboot

03-23-2011 @ 4:36am

Ankaboot-- I agree. Sometimes when you complicate the simple or obvious, you simply muddy the waters and lose the clarity of the obvious.

Happens all the time. We tend to "overthink" things, especially when we want something that hasn't already been given to us.

And it's all theory. How can we mere humans possibly reach the level where we can correctly say we understand how God thinks and works.

We can't possibly understand how God thinks and works. The best we can do is reach something of what God has given us in the way of correct understanding of human thinking and work. People talk of "The Mind of God" as if the human mind is capable of comprehending it. But God has created a "Mind of God" for us to know, that we are capable of knowing, and we can reach the original state of human existence, where Adam "knew" that "Mind of God" because he was in direct communion with God ~ whatever Adam regarded, he knew already everything that God knew about that thing that the human mind is capable of knowing.

Too often it becomes an attempt to mold God into one of us.

We recognize ourselves as unique and distinct individuals with discrete thoughts, feelings, and "personality." But many do not attribute those same things to God, instead making of Him a person-less abstraction, and say such things as "God is Love." But God is The Loving ~ "love" is something He does, not something He "is." And we can know Him, just as we can know any other companion, although not in the same way, but then unlike any other companion, He is always Present, and nearer to each of us than any other companion could possibly be.

Is the purpose to find a loophole so that we don't have to really follow what He has made perfectly clear to us? Are we looking for a way to justify our own failure to do what we know is right? If we know the reason for a rule, then we can carve out exceptions to it. Kind of like the federal income tax code.

I wouldn't compare what God has given us for our benefit to the rationalization of organized crime for armed robbery.

But He says "And none differed until the truth came to them, seeking advantage."

Yes, the "most erudite and literate" can know Him, but they often burden themselves with taking a very circuitous route. All that mental running around just to come back to the beginning where you step back and are so awestruck that He really cares for each one of us.

Many remain lost in the labyrinthine maze they've made of their own minds because of some disease in their hearts.

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-24-2011 @ 12:12am

Again, Sam, I'm sorry for that rude answer I made. This is something I will think about every time I get to blogging, or phoning, or talking face to face! Mea maxima culpa!

by: Jennifer A. Nolan

03-24-2011 @ 12:12am

Again, Sam, I'm sorry for that rude answer I made. This is something I will think about every time I get to blogging, or phoning, or talking face to face! Mea maxima culpa!