Blogging through Rob Bell's "Love Wins" - Version 1

Honestly, how can you go wrong with a title like that? I mean, I remember using that simple statement as a facebook status update years ago.  I remember it being a VCC semi-bumper sticker slogan: Love Wins.


We had our first group meeting to talk about chapter one of the book this last weekend, and it surely bodes well for English-geeks like me that it took us nearly half the session just to argue through the first study guide question on the Preface.  We barely even got to the first chapter, it's that's meaty.  


I stand by my first assessment - Rob Bell thinks like a Poet.  Words are tremendously powerful things.  We do great disservice to always put them all  in limiting cages of one fixed solid meaning.  Sure, sometimes we need fixed, mundane meanings (non genius-level math and science, practical daily activity, etc.), but that is not all that we are as humans and certainly not all that we were meant for.


Yes, I believe in Biblical inerrancy, but maybe not as what is commonly understood by that term. Remember that we Christians do not insist on a single, unchanging translation of the scriptures. The exact wording of those holy and powerful verses seared into so many of our subconsciouses (John 3:16, Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, pick your faves) were translated, at best, 1500 years after the original text.  We're all working from multiple interpretations and Truth as a prism.  There's a reason we love concordances and parallel translations, because it makes the Truth bigger. 


Why is it that we all tacitly agree to using anything other than the original Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and recognize all these varying translations as true, either singly or (even more so?) in combination, yet are uncomfortable with a concept of multi-layered, dynamic, prismatically-glimpsed Truth? Maybe we're not really, foundationally, against that view, at least for ourselves, but we can't proclaim it officially/doctrinally because other people might abuse that freedom and run into all kinds of patently false nonsense. Hmmmm. . .


Good thing our salvation (and theirs) isn't based on intellectual precision - though that's a good thing to want.  We are saved by FAITH, and Jesus is the LIVING Word.  Jesus/God is eternal and unchanging, but living things change and grow.  Contradiction? Not necessarily.  The little-L words change too, as do our interpretations, understanding, and contexts.  The stories we tell around these sacred words take infinite forms, and I guess most of them are "true" to someone at some time and place.  And not only Rob Bell, but C.S. Lewis, Max Lucado, Joe Boyd, and many others are brilliant story-weavers. 


Wouldn't it seem a little cramped if we couldn't learn from their "stories?"

I'm trying a new thing.

Maybe this is a bad idea.  

My brain is too full of messy, slippery tangents. The problem is, they won't just stay small and concise and expressible; they must wander and linger  and morph suddenly into much riskier territory. But these are the things that keep me (us?) up nights, that give vital but intangible flavor to the days.  I HAVE to write about this stuff.  I can't escape being a writer, even though much of what I think is confused and will never see the day. And the silly part (the idiosyncrasy for word-smiths?) is that these are not "meanderings." They are always reasonably well-formed mental essays, with thesis, sub-points and supporting detail/examples ready for prime time. They're always something I could spiel about for hours and eventually make a point even earthlings can appreciate.

But there is never time.  I used to imagine "the Blog in my Head," or that somewhere floating around is the sum total of humanity's unexpressed musing, the things we hadn't time to commit to hard-copy, and that someday somewhere we'll all have access to that great anonymous cosmic  record.  And we'll have the lovely realization that our crazy midnights rants were understood, shared, and validated. 

But I don't really have patience for all that. So, while constrained by this annoying temporal cage, this busyness of surface life and servantly minutiae, I'm just going to post headings.  Hopefully I'll  get back to some of these threads some day . . .

You HAVE to read this book!

Our small group is reading this, thanks to joe Boyd's blog at www.rebelpilgrim.blogspot.com

I'm only in the second chapter but my take so far: Rob Bell is a POET. He speaks in images, thick with meaning, and every word creates a space to ponder . . .

Case in brief (p.61) "Right now, we're trying to embrace our lover, but we're wearing a hazmat suit (. . .) We're trying to taste the thirty-two different spices in the curry, but our mouth is filled with gravel."

change my meaning please.

The dance one won't do -
  and the danger it leads to,
falling down for you.

iPhone haiku #2

Memory falters.
face of the angel, template
of unseen hungers.

"Christian Shepard, really?". . . my pedestrian take on the LOST finale

Others have analyzed and critiqued the LOST finale in far greater detail than I have time to go into, but one thing stands out for me. Reaction seems to be dividing into two camps: the somewhat touchy-feely "relational" side that loved the finale for its emotional closure and sense of catharsis, and the more "analytical," Sci/Fi, puzzle-solving crowd that wants the island mysteries solved, and was rather disappointed by the ending. (I'm not even going to bother giving links, since a die-hand LOSTie will have already read reviews, but the NYTimes, EWeekly, and Slate.com analyses come first to mind).

I'm not satisfied with that dichotomy. As in most things subjective, dichotomies are a poor way to express the variety of reactions, certainly to an experience as rich as 6 seasons of a ground-breaking TV show, so there's my Straw Man out of the way. Still what I haven't seen expressed much at all is the C.S. Lewis-style "relational/philosophical themes plus sci-fi mystery" explique of the finale's (and possible the whole series') implications.

That is, sometimes those big questions are best left unanswered, at least on this side of the divide. The EW review at http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/05/24/lost-series-finale-review/

(okay, so I did give you a link) covers many of the overt "Christian" themes in the finale, but even apart from that particular take, there are so many ways where leaving "mysteries" unanswered just rings more true, more believable, than contorting and twisting events to make every single spaghetti strand incident work out. What I haven't heard at all mentioned is the SciFi theistic worldview, that a Supreme Being could work out all kinds of infinite dimensional "realities" where many parallel lives, choices, destinies, and conflicts work out in ways that are equally real experientially. Or, if that doesn't sit well with your theology, a God who is fundamentally outside of time and space could easily create both an island timeline and a sideways world that were equally real.

Of course, these have been some of LOST's major themes all along, and the reason the series has so comprehensively sucked in both the relational and the sci-fi crowds. The theological and epistemological questions are the fun part, after all, whether it's an individual character's growth, or the shadow puppets behind the island. What exactly is "real?" How do people make choices? How much free will do we have? How much are we conscious of our paradigms? Do we dare to step out of our characters?

I can see how this series, more than any other I've seen lately, could fill a college syllabus full of discussions and analyses. I love that LOST is perfect for the times, not just the setting of current events and global conditions, but the way we communicate, collaborate and construct meaning these days. It's perfect that there are as many different valid ways to critique the show as there are characters to love/hate. SOmebody else mentioned that the way a person critiques the finale says everything about the viewer's philosophical frame.

So my particular frame, at least at the time I watched it (and very strongly influenced, perhaps, by the fact that I watched with a crowd of warm, enthusiastic, mostly christian-believers) is that I love unanswered mysteries on this side of the divide, because I believe fervently that our BIG questions can and will only be answered/answerable on the other side. I certainly don't think the creators of LOST had any direct correlation (over the sweep of the entire series anyway) to a specific theology. That would be kinda trite and tacky, not to mention boring. But they certainly left us with a lovely, tantalizing set of questions.

Who is Jacob, really?

What happens to the island?

What's with the mirrors?

"Now we see only an indistinct image in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now what I know is incomplete, but then I will know fully, even as I am fully known."

(1 Corinthians 13:12, International Standard Version)

Paging Jonathan Edwards*

Okay, Uncle.

I can't sleep, so here I am with warm milk, hoping to blog myself into happy nighty night time by dawn. Tossing and turning upstairs, my mental jag was about how disconcertingly easy it is for humans, Christian or otherwise, to justify a status quo. Just read a column by Nicholas Kristof that sort of made me squirm after the fact. Take a glance here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02kristof.html

What got me was how few of us really can "grow in Christlikeness" in the sense of revolutionary transformation of how we impact our big world, in a way that makes God's grace (and our differentness from the unbeliever) readily apparent. Kristof's column mentioned several unsung Catholics who are making a tremendous impact by how they live and reach out to those in need around the world. Now, I know there is plenty of hurt to go around and plenty of good to be done right in our back yards, but that's not my point here. What I struggle with is now much, in the developed world especially, we are institutionally bound into a lifestyle that by default causes direct harm to people, the planet, and future generations.

Please be assured that I'm no miltiant environmentalist, not even a wannabe. In fact, I'm painfully aware of how not-environmental my lifestyle is, and how difficult-to-impossible is to be a typical American (especially a suburban mom-of-4) and not walk around every single day spewing poison into the world and causing who knows how much damage to the weakest among us.

Before I get accused of any Leftish leanings here, I also should mention the parallel "La, la, la, I can't hear you" self-justification by ignorance that many "progressives" live by - the refusal to admit the evil of taking a pre-born human life. I'm not even gonna get into arguing why/if it's wrong; we know it is, or why else would we be so reluctant/squeamish/irate about being shown pictures of a procedure if we really believe it's value neutral? (Now don't be judgin,' you're thinking. Okay, whatever. This is Anjoo. You all know me. I'm usually a pretty nice person, but telling me not to be opinionated is like telling the water not to be wet. This is my blog, I get to rant!) So let's just agree that this isn't about political leanings or "issues," but about human nature and selfishness and sin.

So, Kristof was talking about some ordinary Catholics and their incredible witness. "Ordinary" only in the sense (from here out is my take, not Kristof's) that their beliefs and theology are basic Christianity 101: do unto others . . .what you do unto the least of these you do unto me . . . all Creation groans, waiting for its savior . . .no greater love has any man than this . . . etc. And still perfectly NOT ordinary by their rarity. How many of us privileged Westerners could dare to give up all our creature comforts and live like that? We may sponsor kids with World Vision or some other group, we may send checks and earnestly pray for foreign or inner-city missionaries, but how many of us would really live like that?

And it's not because we don't know that grinding poverty exists, and that our actions and lifestyle choices have a direct impact on how the poorest in the world live, or even if they live. So why is it so easy to to make only token gestures? We give 10% or 20% of our income, and feel it's "okay" when the majority of the world lives on a 1/10th of that (Try this little link: http://www.globalrichlist.com/) Or we switch from plastic to paper, or SUV to hybrid, conventional to organic, omnivore to veggie, and think that's enough. I'm not slamming the environmental decisions either here, because some of them are more than I'm doing, and it's a great start.

But it's just a start, and we'll never make up the difference. There's no way we're going to cleanse our eviromental impact in our lifetimes. Or, to look at the other half of the PC spectrum, even if we completely eradicate abortion in our lifetimes there's no way we can say we've adequately cared for the sick, the old, the forgotten, the abused, all those children AFTER they were born. We'll always find a way to deflect the problem, make it somebody else's, pretend we're doing all we can. Or more accurately, to compare ourselves to all "those people" who aren't doing anything, and be temporarily pacified.

Uh-oh, Anjoo must be off her meds . Shhhhhhhhh . . !

Now, let's come around to the theology. Be reassured I do NOT believe in salvation by works, that is EXACTLY the point. I don't believe that if we use cloth grocery bags, live in a hut, and save a million babies that we would thereby be pure and free and not need forgiveness. What I'm looking at, what's so glaringly absurdly apparent if you look at the typical 21st century US lifestyle, is that we can't stand to look at the harm we're causing for more than 3 seconds before we distract ourselves (TV anyone? Internet?) and find an excuse.

We pretend that it's okay because everyone else around us does it. Or, everyone does that much plus 10% worse, so we must actually be doing better than most. We justify what is patently sociopathic or sinful behavior (how is it anything else when we use up so much stuff that God told us to share? when we destroy so much that God told us to take care of? When we kill and abuse so many that God told us to honor?) just because the culture around us doesn't think it's wrong.

How is that following Christ?

All that stuff about taking up our cross, counting the cost, being a new creation, set apart. . ? Now, I reassert that I do not believe we "have to" live by a certain mile-long list of Do's and Don'ts in order to be a "real" Christian. So what is my point? Am I just trying to be a downer, demoralize everyone? Or, even worse, just give voice to the accuser and make us all feel unforgivable? Nooooooooooooo way!

It's GRACE that saves us! Yaaaaayyyyyy, because we all need it so desperately. And it scares me how quickly and almost universally we forget that. How we "do" some little token act of selflessness and think that now, since we're "saved by Grace," that we don't have to look at all the uncomfortable stuff. But I suspect it's just the opposite: because we know we're already saved and loved by Grace when we've accepted Jesus as savior, we should be unafraid to face the remaining yuck within ourselves, and freely acknowledge that there's still a whole lotta yuck left.

A WHOLE lotta yuck. Enough for a lifetime of repentance. So my initial impetus was the hypocrisy of not acknowledging a few particular grievous sins in our culture, but there could be so many more. I do actually love the USA, I hasten to add. I firmly believe it's the least bad country in the world. In this world. But let's not pretend even for a minute people, especially my sisters and brothers in Christ, that this is anything near like the Kingdom we're praying for. Let's roll up our sleeves, fall on our knees, and get to work.

*Jonathan Edwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)