Although Bell really didn’t come out and say, “this is my point”, he did say the same thing he’s said in other books (what I believe his underlying reason is [which I agree with]), that his main goal is to make people think about what they believe, to pull out the understood way of thinking, and rethink it through.
So far so good.
So after just writing the statement, so far so good, I see that I’m going into the book with a filter, and wanting to really take the book apart. Running it through a filter of checking and thinking, not just absorbing. I think Bell made this point in Velvet Elvis, or all the other
books he wrote ;)
He does go through a very valid topic in the church today, how we as Christians are representing Jesus with our words and actions. Are we painting a bad picture of the gospel? He even goes so far as to pose the question, (loosely quoted) If the people going to heaven are dependent on our interaction, does that mean God would send people to hell to burn for all eternity? (knowing this is a topic in the book, I won’t expand on this now). He also poses the question of why we’re Christians, and what we believe the gospel is for. Is it for getting to heaven? If so, does that mean the earth and people suffer until Jesus comes again?
Coming from the Vineyard, our theology fits right into the point I believe he’s implying (at least at this point). Jesus is redeeming the world through us, RIGHT NOW. Jesus isn’t just a ticket puncher that seals our way into “Heaven” for all eternity, instead of burn in hell for just as long (again, more on that later). It means we’re to have life and fullness here, now! Jesus came to bring life (present tense). That means we’re to be actively involved in spreading his Kingdom and bringing life to dead places. This isn’t just the typical save people bit, this is participating in feeding the poor, donating time and money to people in need, caring for and cultivating the earth, doing your “normal” job at work in his joy, being life to people you interact with, along with what he told the disciples to do, which is heal the sick, cast out demons, etc. I fail at all of those on a regular basis. But I do believe that’s my role. Main point, that we’re to co-participate with Christ in restoring the world to what it was intended, to serve poverty and injustice, to change things for the betterment of all. To restore life to God’s design. To be creative with God as he creates life here. (note… this isn’t a place I’m going to talk about how badly Christians have misrepresented this task).
He also makes a point about how we’ve over complicated the gospel message, when it’s about Jesus and only Jesus. I would HIGHLY recommend a book by Carl Medearis called “Speaking of Jesus”. VERY VERY GOOD. Anyway, onward. At this rate, I’ll never get through the prologue, let alone the chapters o_O
page 10 – “or the woman who wrote the letter to the Hebrews.” Debatable :) and where are those little asterisks he usually puts in his books giving the bible verses and books he’s getting his information from? It would be better, in my opinion, to say about “… the woman who wrote the letter to the Hebrews”, that this is a debated topic, that some people believe such and such, some people believe this other thing. He doesn’t know who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. Furthermore, is this just meant as a strike to standard Christians who think women have no place as leaders in the church? Sounds like it. *note, the Vineyard and I again agree with the same thing, that women hold the same potential to lead and pastor the church as men. This is to say that obviously not all people should be leading the church, just that the bible doesn’t say to exclude women, if they’re so gifted. Same page, Bell; same page :) at least, about the women leading the church page, but not on who wrote Hebrews.
page 13 – “Is it what you say, or what you are that saves you?” Bell is talking about the story of the Centurion (not a Jew), that Jesus is amazed at his faith. Jesus in the story says that not even God’s own people (the Jews Jesus came to minister to, and was referring to) have this level of faith. The way Bell talks about this, it would easily be taken as current “God’s own people”. That Bell’s argument, given how he is building a case against Christians in this chapter, could easily be taken as him saying someone who isn’t a “Christian”, could be more of a Christian than they are. Could be true. Given the chapter, I think Bell’s point is that no method of religion defines who’s a Christian. Just because I or anyone says a prayer when we’re 5 years old or any age, doesn’t mean we’re Christians. He’s building a case for questioning what decides this. I hope he answers the question though. Bell’s writing is known to circle around and around and not make a point. Very open ended.
page 19 – “but this isn’t just a book of questions, it a book of responses to those questions.” whew :D
addendum: alright, so speaking with a friend last night about the book up to this point, he told me the main axis of the book, in his opinion, sides with a very universalist view of Christianity, but one that I and he both tend to lean. Not that anything is okay, and Jesus isn’t the way to God, but just that there is no formula to salvation, and frankly, in Bell’s example of Ghandi being in Heaven, even though he might not have “said the words” most Christians believe are what makes it possible for us to be with God, action and faith through grace is the ticket. This isn’t just a head knowledge or us believing the right things. So anyway, yes, I believe there will be people that came through every religion with God for eternity, because Jesus seeked them out, but not through a religion. Remember, Jesus is alive and a person, able to speak to anyone, not just people that are intellectually aware of Christianity. This is the point in the prologue I believe Bell is making when he says “which Christ” are they following?
Anyway, I could probably talk about most of this for a long time, but I won’t.
