Grace, Sin, and Universalism: Reflections on Rob Bell's Love Wins

Love Wins, the recent book by popular pastor and author Rob Bell, has brought the topic of Universalism to the forefront of Christian discussion. As a disclaimer, I have not read Bell’s book (it isn’t available in India as far as I know). I have, however, read several reviews, both negative and positive. Some reviewers believe Bell is presenting a Universalist viewpoint. Others believe his in no way promotes Universalism, but just promotes God’s love. Most, however, recognize that Bell does not make his position clear. They point out that Bell—rather than presenting a clearly defined position—is content to merely raise questions in an attempt to be thought-provoking.

Rather than review a book I haven’t read, I want to respond to an idea Bell puts forward in his preface, namely that the notional of eternal punishment is toxic and subverts Jesus’ message of love, peace forgiveness, and joy. In his preface, Bell writes:

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.

I can understand how the idea that all non-Christians are doomed to spend eternity in judgment would be offensive to a non-Christian. On the surface it seems harsh and cruel that God would allow so many people to suffer for eternity. How could we expect people to follow a God like that?

The main problem with this view is that it has no understanding of sin and grace. To understand these we must understand several aspects of God’s character. People who believe it is unfair of God to allow so many people to face eternal judgment often appeal—as Bell does—to God’s love. However, they do not put God’s love in the context of God’s equally important qualities of holiness and justice. Emphasizing any aspects of God’s character over others often leads to a misunderstanding of who He is and how He should act.

God’s holiness asserts that he remains pure and undefiled by sin. That means that sin or anyone who is sinful must be separated from Him. For examples, look at Isaiah’s response to his vision of God (Isaiah 6:1–5) or Peter’s response to his first encounter with Jesus (Luke 5:7). Coming face-to-face with the holiness of God, they recognized their own sinfulness and knew that they were not able to stand before Him. God’s holiness reveals our inadequacy. We may see people doing “good” from our perspective, but from the perspective of God’s holiness they aren’t even close.

The justice of God is equally important in understanding this issue. God’s justice or righteousness demands that people receive what they deserve in a just manner. For people to receive what they do not deserve would violate the justice of God. Since He is holy, then He is well within His rights and character to eternally punish anyone who violates His holiness with sin. Since we are all sinners, then God’s righteous anger and punishment is what we all deserve.

This is where God’s grace comes in and what makes it so amazing. Understanding God’s holiness and justice should give us a much fuller and richer understanding of His grace. The idea that many people are condemned to eternal punishment should not be difficult to accept when in the context of God’s holiness and righteousness and our sinfulness. The idea that any of us would not be eternally condemned is a far more radical notion. The idea that God—through His love and forgiveness—would find a way to bring any of us into a relationship with Him without violating His holiness or justice is astounding. The question should not be, “How can a loving God allow people to be eternally punished?” It should be, “How is it possible that a righteous and holy God can forgive me and bring me into relationship with Him?” The answer of course lies in God’s amazing grace and love that He showed for us when Christ died for us.

I agree with Bell that the world desperately needs to hear Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy. However, what power does that message have if we fail to recognize our sinfulness in the face of God’s holiness and justice? What does God’s love or forgiveness mean if viewed without His holiness and justice? Only by understanding God’s holiness and justice can we truly understand just how much His grace and love really mean.

I don’t expect non-Christians to understand eternal punishment because they don’t recognize their own sinfulness in the face of God’s holiness. Of course it sounds offensive to them, because from their perspective they have done nothing to deserve such an extreme punishment. Without recognizing God’s holiness and justice, we can’t really appreciate salvation. To truly understand God’s love, we must understand His grace and what His salvation has accomplished. We need to understand each of the aspects of God’s character to fully understand the amazing gift of salvation.

Movies of the 00's: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

“Gone Baby Gone”, the directorial debut of Ben Affleck, deals with the moral choices we make. The plot of this well-made thriller involves the disappearance of four-year-old Amanda McCready. As the police struggle to find answers, Amanda’s aunt hires a private detective, Patrick Kenzie (played by Casey Affleck) and his partner/girlfriend. Their investigation leads them through Boston’s rough lower income neighborhoods and a variety of drug dealers, police (both honest and corrupt), gangs, and pedophiles. The mystery is very engaging and includes many surprising but still believable twists (which I won’t reveal here).

What really makes this movie stand out is the way it deals with the moral dilemmas faced by Kenzie. Kenzie faces two major decisions that blur the lines of right or wrong and moral or immoral. The first decision he makes, while illegal, is one that people close to him fully support. It is one, in fact, which many people would support with the “ends justify the means” argument. However, the movie does not give full support to this argument. The decision weighs heavy on Kenzie who admits when asked if he would do it again that he would not.

Kenzie’s second decision at the end of the movie is more difficult. Those close to him reject his dicision. Many viewers, as well, will disagree that Kenzie makes the “right” choice. However, Kenzie stands up for what he believes to be right thing and does not make what could be considered the easier decision. This decision costs Kenzie greatly, and some closing scenes suggest that Kenzie knows that even though he made the “right” decision, it might not be the “best” decision for everyone involved.

Right and wrong in “Gone Baby Gone” are not as simple as black and white. The movie shows, however, that even though we live in a world where right and wrong seem relative, we have to live with our choices and their consequences. When there are no simple answers, one must act with integrity, doing what is right, not what is easy or popular. In the opening lines of the movie Kenzie states, “When I was young, I asked my priest how you could get to heaven and still protect yourself from all the evil in the world. He told me what God said to His children. ‘You are sheep among wolves. Be wise as serpents, yet innocent as doves.’ ”

Movies of the 00's: Children of Men (2006)

Seemingly impossible, a young, unmarried girl miraculously learns she is pregnant. While on a difficult journey she must give birth in the most humble of locations. The baby she gives birth to brings hope to a hopeless world. No, this isn’t a description of “The Nativity”. It is Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men”.

Set Great Britain in the year 2027, “Children of Men” explores a world where humanity has lost its ability to reproduce. The youngest person on the planet is 18 years old and no one has been able to explain or correct the problem. With eventual extinction looming, despair and chaos rule the day. Great Britain, one of the last functional societies, faces terrorist violence and mass immigration. In this dark world “Children of Men” tells the story of Londoner Theo Faron (played by Clive Owen) and his attempt to get the first pregnant woman in 18 years to a group dedicated to solving the problem of infertility known as the Human Project.

The movie is technically brilliant. It is well acted, shot with excellent cinematography—including several long, well-choreographed tracking shots—, and includes several breathtaking moments. Its parallel to the Christmas story, however, is really what makes it resonate. The picture a world where people have no hope of a future is a good illustration of the hopelessness hidden beneath the surface in our world. The birth of the child gives hope for all humanity. Perhaps the best scene in the movie includes several minutes of stunned silence as soldiers and revolutionaries pause their fighting and stare in amazement at the new born miracle as his mother carries him through a crowded battle zone. It is a reminder of the awe and wonder we should feel when we think about the story of Christ’s birth.

The Decade in Movies

The first decade of the 2000s was full of transition for movies. CGI technology made things that were previously unthinkable possible. Advances in home technologies like DVDs (that’s right, they were brand new in 2000), Blu-Ray discs, and High Definition TVs changed the way people watch movies at home. The rise of companies like Netflix gave movie fans inexpensive access to an unlimited supply of movies.

The box office during the 00s was dominated by wizards, hobbits, pirates, and comic book heroes. Critical awards branched out to include more independent and foreign films and actors. There were many great movies in the 00s. In the next several posts I plan on revisiting some of what I consider to be the best movies of decade.

This will not be a “Top-10” List. I will mostly ignore movies that were huge box office hits or movies that have already had much written about them. That means you will not be seeing anything from me about movies like Gladiator, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Harry Potter movies, or The Dark Knight. My criteria are that the movie has to be technically and artistically sound (well-written; well-acted; well-directed, etc.). Besides that it must have some redeemable value, be admirably thought-provoking, or reflect, in some way, a Biblical worldview.

I will not be posting these movies in any particular order. In fact, I have not completely finalized which movies will be included and which will not. I will inevitably leave out movies from the decade that I enjoy as much or more than any of the ones I discuss. The movies I do choose to include will be some of what I consider to be the most worthwhile, well-done, and thought provoking movies of the past decade.

The Wire (Season 1)

I recently finished watching the first season of HBO’s “The Wire”, a show given the label of “best TV drama ever” by many critics. After watching just one season, it is easy for me to agree that “The Wire” is one of the most well put together TV shows of all time. It’s commitment to realism and avoidance of clichés makes “The Wire” a very engaging and interesting experience.

The main story of season one involves a detail of Baltimore police trying to make a case against a West side projects drug ring run by Avon Barksdale. Characters on both sides of this conflict are given equal time as we see how the Barksdale crew works as well as how the detectives build their case. It may sound like a typical cop show, but “The Wire” offers much more.

“The Wire” (at least season one) is about “The Game” and how it is played by all sides. This refers to The Game played by drug dealers and junkies and also The Game played by the Baltimore bureaucracies and those in power. Both games have rules and those who attempt to play outside of these rules are ostracized, marginalized, or worse.

While “The Wire” is critically lauded, it never reached a large audience. This is most likely because “The Wire” is fairly difficult to watch on a couple different levels. First, it requires careful attention by its viewers. Part of what makes it so realistic is its refusal to explain itself or hold the audience’s hand. If the characters know what is going on in “The Wire”, then the audience better figure it out. No out-of-character explanations will be given.

Take for example, a scene where two of the main detectives investigate a murder scene while uttering only one word (an expletive). Other shows would have the detectives explaining to each other what they are finding, how the bullet’s trajectory explains where the shooter was, and what this all means. In “The Wire”, the detectives can see what happened and feel no need to explain it to each other (or the audience). The viewer has to pay attention and understand what the detectives are finding and what it means.

“The Wire” is also difficult to watch because of its content. Baltimore’s inner city problems are shown in all their glory. Nothing is glamorized or romanticized in “The Wire”, including characters’ speech (which is very profane) and actions. Because characters are so well established, the show’s tragedies become much more difficult to watch. The world of “The Wire” is harsh and takes no mercy, even on “main” characters.

Despite its difficulties, “The Wire” is worth seeing. It takes an honest look at life in a 21^st Century inner city,^[1] and reveals a worldview similar to the one presented in the book of Ecclesiastes.

“Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.”—Ec. 7:20

In “The Wire” there is not a clear line between “good guys” or “bad guys”. Things are not black and white in the world it portrays. It is instead full of many different shades of gray. Even characters who desire to do the right thing find themselves handcuffed by the systems in which they operate. For example, a homicide chief hinders the detectives’ ability to make a solid case against Barksdale and his crew. He does this not because he is a “bad guy” but because what is important to him is that his clearance rate (the percentage of homicide cases closed) remains high. Having some of his detectives distracted by a lengthy Barksdale detail only hurts that.

Similarly, after painstakingly and patiently tracking down the main drug stash house the detail is ordered by their bosses to raid it. The detail is not allowed to follow the lead of the drugs leaving and entering the house or to make a stronger case against the major players because media pressure calls for action now. Seeing “dope on the table” for some press conference becomes more important than making the best case possible.

Even the detectives working the case are not presented as true heroes. They are mostly hard drinking (some are definitely alcoholics, other could be) and adulterous. Detective McNulty, season one’s most “main” character, is portrayed as a complete narcissist whose main motivation at times seems to be to show everyone how smart he is or to stick it to his boss (Ec. 4:4).

“Folly is set on many high places … I have seen servants riding on horses and princes walking as servants on the land.”—Ec. 10:6–7

“The Wire” is full of characters that have great potential if only they were in different situations. Junkie and police informant Bubbles is so charming and intelligent, even one of the detectives wonders “Why the hell is he a dope fiend?” Barksdale’s number two man, Stringer Bell, is shown taking economics classes from a community college, learning how the marketplace works only to apply these principles to his drug trade.

One of the season’s most tragic figures is young Wallace, a 16-year-old caught up in the dealing part of the Game. Wallace clearly is not cut out for this life. He is a sensitive, caring boy who reacts badly when a body that he helped find for his bosses is dumped near his window as a message to some rivals. He takes care of a group of younger kids in an abandoned apartment. Wallace should be in school, studying and enjoying life. Instead, when given a chance to start over he cannot. He knows no life other than the one he is stuck in, saying at one point that he has never even been to the East side of Baltimore.

Those in positions of authority in city institutions are not exactly “fools,” but they are not “princes” in any moral sense either. Mostly they are ambitious people who learned how to play the Game and please those in positions over them. They value their careers more than doing what is right. People who do the opposite do not progress far in the Baltimore bureaucracies.

“Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful”—Ec. 9:11

“The Wire” does not wrap up neatly like most shows. While charges are brought on most members of the Barksdale crew, most of these charges are less severe than they should be. Witnesses who were counted on drop out, and some of the major targets walk free or plead down to minor offensives. The police who worked the Barksdale case most aggressively are reassigned or passed over for promotion, while those who played the Game to their bosses’ liking receive them. In its conclusion, season one of “The Wire” reflects the reality of life seen in Ecclesiastes (3:16; 7:15) that justice is lacking. Even though some characters are brought to justice, the cost for doing so is too high.

“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”—Ec. 1:9

Season one closes with a montage of street activity on Baltimore’s West side showing that The Game is being played. People who were locked up have been replaced. The minor successes of the Barksdale cases have been made irrelevant by the fact that nothing has been done to stop or even slow down the drug war. People are replaced and things continue as they always have.

---

^[1]Although the show takes place in Baltimore, it represents the problems of any major American city.