Review of Rob Bell's 'Love Wins'

Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins' has proved controversial. The accusation is that Bell suggests that everybody will be saved, and it does not really matter whether you make a commitment to Christ or not. So, is this fair? Well, it is clear that Bell is a universalist - believing that Christ died for all and all will be saved by and through him. But the second part of the accusation, that a commitment to Christ is not important, is harder, although perhaps not impossible, to sustain.

Bell is clear that a commitment to Christ really matters, really transforms lives. But is it essential to eternal life, essential to entry into heaven? Well, Bell suggests that framing the issue as 'who's in' and 'who's out' is unhelpful and unbiblical. He also raises important problems for those that believe that failure to accept Christ in this life will result in eternal damnation. What about good, decent people who have been brought up in a non-Christian culture and have lived a godly life? What about a teenager who dies while in a temporary bout of rebellion? Bell suggests that a dogmatic interpretation in such circumstances is not compatible will the Gospel message of a loving God, and I think I agree with him.

In fact, throughout the book I found myself agreeing with Bell's general thrust - that God is love, that God cannot not love, that God is all powerful and will not give up on any soul. But of course this inevitably leads to the question - do our choices in this life matter?

On this point, Bell, for me, briefly crosses a line. He quotes Jesus: 'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father accept through me.' And then he writes, 'What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him.' (Italics mine.) Now, this suggestion that those being saved may not even know that it is Jesus who saves them, creates a serious problem. If Bell is suggesting this in the sense of the 'unknown god' of Acts 17, where Paul tells his Greek audience that their unknown god is in fact the only true God - Jesus - then I can go with him.

But, for me, a decision to accept the gift offered by Jesus is essential because without it a massive free-will problem arises. It goes like this. If Jesus can save without the saved person even knowing, then this is happening against their free will, without their active decision. If God is prepared to do overrule our free will, then why does he allow suffering to occur? Why does he not intervene to stop all the suffering in the world? Free will - our freedom to choose or reject God - is central to the Christian faith. It cannot be optional.

In the further reading section of the book Bell suggests C.S. Lewis's 'The Great Divorce' as the book to read to understand heaven and hell, and I strongly agree with this. Although it is obviously allegorical, there is no doubt that Lewis believes that there will be opportunity to choose Christ after death. In fact, everybody in hell will be there of their own free will, actively choosing the darkness. God will reject no-one. However, Bell suggests - and I my hope is that he is right - that eventually every soul will accept the free gift offered by Christ and be saved. In the end, 'Love Wins'.

The Inherent Intelectual Flaw in Modern Biblical Criticism

I am often confronted with comments from people who clearly consider themselves wiser than myself that caution me against a 'fundamentalist' interpretation of the bible. When considering a gospel reading I am implored to consider the context in which the writer wrote or exactly what point the writer was trying to make. And, inevitably, the 'writer' is never Matthew, Mark, Luke or John!

Accepting the recorded words of Jesus as an accurate account of his statements is considered a rather naive viewpoint. We can accept the general thrust of the gospels without having to suspend our reason, the argument goes. The gospels are not flawless - far from it - but do give a generalised account of what happened. But modern educated Christians should not be afraid of criticising the accounts.

However, it seems to me that this position comes more from intellectual vanity than intellectual rigor. Those who promote such 'enlightened' criticism of the gospel accounts generally accept the central claims of Jesus, including the most outrageous one - his divinity. If we accept that Jesus is divine, we accept that he is God. God, that is, that created the universe and of course all the natural rules that govern the universe.

Our 'modern scholars' often start contextualising the gospel accounts when they come across a particularly challenging supernatural event. And I find that the most challenging event of all in the mind of this type of person is the actual recording of the gospels themselves. They reason that the accounts were written many years after the events and that they cannot possibly be accurate word-for-word accounts. Let us put aside the fact that parts of Corinthians, that contain detailed recounting of the central claims of Jesus, have been traced back to perhaps as little as 15 years after the death of Jesus - this is not they key point here. The key point is that if we accept that the incarnation was a direct intervention by God in history, can we not accept that God is quite capable of inspiring an accurate recording - supernatural or otherwise - of these important events by deeply committed followers?

But the most important flaw in this modern biblical criticism methodology is a fundamental intellectual floor. If you decide that one part of the gospel account has been 'adapted' by the writer in order to make this or that point, then it stands to reason that any part of the gospel could have been 'adapted'. What can we trust? If, as the former archbishop of York once said, the virgin birth did not actually happen, then why should we trust any part of the gospel account? The whole Christian story begins to unravel.

But Christians - even many criticisers - know in their hearts that the Christian story is true. Why would we chose to undermine the preeminent source of Christian theology? You do not have to suspend your reason to accept the accuracy of the gospel accounts. You just have to accept that God is God.

Lies about God. Lie #2 - God is condemning and unforgiving

In Psalm 130 David cries out to God like I'm sure all of us have from time to time. He knows the response from God will certainly not be condemning or unforgiving:

Out of the depths I cry to you, LORD;
Lord, hear my voice.
Let your ears be attentive
   to my cry for mercy.

 If you, LORD, kept a record of sins,
   Lord, who could stand?
But with you there is forgiveness,
   so that we can, with reverence, serve you.

Jesus himself illustrates the way God feels about us in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The son had squandered his inheritance and was now destitute:

When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father.

We often say that someone 'finds God'. In reality, God takes all the initiative and reaches out to us:

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.  

Like the prodigal son, perhaps we sometimes feel unworthy to be the adopted sons of God, but God will have none of it:

The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

Far from being condemning and unforgiving, God searches us out so he can lavish his goodness upon us. And when we accept his free gift, his response is the same as the father in the parable:

So they began to celebrate.

Lies about God. Lie #1 - Perhaps God exists, but he is distant and uniterested in us

Some 3,000 years ago, King David's inspired song says all there is to say about this lie. Psalm 139:

You have searched me, LORD,
   and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
   you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
   you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
   you, LORD, know it completely.
You hem me in behind and before,
   and you lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
   too lofty for me to attain.

Where can I go from your Spirit?
   Where can I flee from your presence?
If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
   if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
   if I settle on the far side of the sea,
even there your hand will guide me,
   your right hand will hold me fast.
If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
   and the light become night around me,”
even the darkness will not be dark to you;
   the night will shine like the day,
   for darkness is as light to you.
 
For you created my inmost being;
   you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
   your works are wonderful,
   I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
   when I was made in the secret place,
   when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
   all the days ordained for me were written in your book
   before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts, God!
   How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them,
   they would outnumber the grains of sand—
   when I awake, I am still with you.

Multiculturalism Hasn't Failed. We Have Failed Multiculturalism.

Today in a speech in Munich David Cameron tells us that "state multiculturalism" has failed. Not surprisingly, with his emphasis on Islamic extremism, Muslim groups have expressed considerable dismay at the speech. And well they might. It is not that multiculturalism has failed. We have failed multiculturalism.

However, let us be clear - this failure lies firmly with the establishment and not with the people. Spend any time in central London and you will see multiculturalism alive and well with all ethnicities and religions living and working side by side without any "help" from the state. No, it is state meddling and media hysteria that has created the great discomfort in white middle-England communities.

One of the most divisive issues is, of course, religion. However, once again, on the streets few problems exist, with Muslims, Christians and Hindus co-existing in many places without problems. It is the state-sponsored marginalisation of Christianity that causes anger. There is a perception, not entirely unjustified, of discrimination by the authorities against Christianity. Examples such as nurse Caroline Petrie, a Christian, who faced disciplinary action for offering to pray for an elderly patient, even though the patient made no complaint. This sort of example angers people because there is a certainty that if Ms Petrie had been of any other religion, no action would have been taken. Ironically, most non-Christian religious people are fully accepting of the Christian heritage of this country and are often perplexed when councils meddle with Christian norms claiming minority communities will be offended.

The multiculturalism of the streets works because there is tacit acceptance of universal values. Having said this, it is clear there are serious threats to these universal values in some communities, and it is this that the state should focus upon. Rather than petty attacks on Christians, the state should tackle human rights abuses in whatever community they occur.

As far as religion is concerned, it is respect that is key. But this has to include equal respect for all religions and this includes Christianity.  However, this respect cannot and must not be allowed to override our hard-won universal values. In the UK and around the world, the UK government should be clear and direct that, for example, discrimination against women, or barbaric punishments such as amputations or stoning, are wrong in all circumstances. And if, like me, you are a Christian, let us not kid ourselves that abuses against human rights only occur in non-Christian countries. So-called fundamentalist Christians in the US screaming that 'God hates fags' are as much an offence against God and human rights as the Taliban.

So, if multiculturalism is to succeed the state needs to change direction and apply some street common sense. No more marginalisation of Christianity, no more blind-eyes to human rights abuses. Multiculturalism will thrive when the state robustly upholds what all reasonable people instinctively accept - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

Wealthwise, we need to look down, not up....

It is certainly true that household budgets are being squeezed, and it is not a happy experience. But there is a reason why we are constantly bombarded of images of wealth - if advertisers can convince us that lots of people have brand new cars, expensive holidays and plasma TVs, we can be induced to spend more than we can really afford because we feel we should keep up.

There is an excellent antidote to this temptation. When considering how wealthy you are, look down, not up. How many people are poorer than you are? If you go to the excellent website http://www.globalrichlist.com/ and type in your annual income, you might be surprised. For example, type in the UK average salary of around £25,500 per annum and you will find that you are in the top 1.15% richest people in the world! There are approximately 5,930,445,217 people worse off than you.

Petrol nearly £6 per gallon, no pay rise, pathetic return on your savings? Yes, it is annoying. But it could be worse....

Review of Chris Mullin's 'Decline & Fall'

One of the things that simply has to be endured when reading political memoirs is the colossal ego of the average politician. It tends to go with the ground, and Chris Mullen is no exception. Reading through these diaries, I am afraid that I tend to agree with Roy Hattersley's view that 'page after page exudes the conviction that he is morally superior to those around him'.

It is clear that Mullin sees himself as a conviction politician. However, in this form of writing, where thoughts are recorded almost daily, the reader gets a genuine insight into the real person. I do not doubt that Mullin is passionate about those things close to his heart - international development, justice, the environment - but the reality that appears throughout these pages is that he is no different that any other politician. It is shocking how utterly dismissive he is of his role as a MP after losing his job in government, at one point describing himself as a 'glorified social worker.' Excuse me, Mr Mullin, but I thought you were paid £65,000 per annum to represent your constituents whether or not you have a government job!

When asked by a schoolgirl what is the most important decision he has ever made, he is honest enough to say that he was rather thrown but then reflects that it was probably his decision to vote against the Iraq war. Really? Bearing in mind that the government easily won the vote, Mullen's vote was ultimately completely inconsequential to anyone except, of course, Mullin himself. Never mind all the decisions that actually made a difference! As I say - colossal ego.

Now, I am aware that this review is coming across harsher than I intended. I have to say that I did not warm to Mullen as a character but I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place. He clearly wants to do the right thing and see the right thing done. But his unmoving conviction in the rightness of his own judgement too often seems to obscure a bigger and more important picture. He is effusive about the undeniable achievements of the Labour government yet too often seems sniping and self-righteous towards ministers. I am not at all sure the name he gives to Blair, 'The Man', is intended as a compliment.

And yet, often I found myself strongly agreeing with the opinions he shares. I almost shouted 'too true!' out loud as he berated the grumbling and cynicism of this age when people in the UK are healthier, wealthier and better educated than ever before. Do they really want to go back to the strikes, waiting lists and power cuts of the 1970s and 80s, when millions of young people left school without any qualifications and degrees were the preserve of a fortunate few? Well said, Mr Mullin.

Mullen's assessment of Nick Clegg, a massive bogey man for me, has proven to be spot on. 'Ludicrous, self-righteous, easily the biggest charlatan of the lot.' I cannot argue with that!.

But I think I struggle to like Mullen not least of all because he often comes across as a bit of an old dinosaur. Musing how he would like to retire to Vietnam - his wife is Vietnamese - he describes the house he would like to build with 'solar panels - my only concession to the twenty-first century'. It is not, in my view, a very healthy attribute in a MP to consider everything old as inherently better than anything modern. Surely, those given the task of running the country must have the vision to look forwards as well as back? It seems that Mullen's decision to retire from the House of Commons did not come a moment too soon.

What a mug I've been....

I voted Labour in all three of Tony Blair's election victories. However, although I felt that he had been an excellent Chancellor, I became convinced that Gordon Brown was not up to the top job. As the election approached, I began to think the unthinkable - could I, should I, vote Tory?

My wife warned against it. She was unconvinced by Cameron. Just a front man, she said. It is the same old Tory party. Maybe memories of the way Blair changed the Labour party weighed heavily on my mind. Maybe Cameron has changed the Tories, I thought. Maybe they are not the 'nasty' party any longer. Gradually, a combination of the failings of the Brown administration and the soothing words of Cameron began to convince me. And so for the first time ever in a general election, I voted Tory, the sole Tory voter out of the four voters in my household. I got quite a bit of stick from my daughters, and a diplomatic silence from my wife!

It has to be said, it did not start well. Much to my disgust and amazement, having failed to secure an overall majority, Cameron teamed up with the pompous party - the Liberal Democrats. Now this is where my judgement has proved to be correct. I have for many years held the Liberal Democrats in contempt. It irritates me beyond belief the way they stand on the sidelines, holier than thou, proclaiming how honest and principled they are, whilst condemning everybody else. They were not to be trusted. Clegg would boil his own granny down for glue if it would get him what he wants, and in getting into bed with the Tories, he has shown that I was completely correct. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats were positioned clearly to the left of the Labour party, so quite how Clegg can justify sharing power with the Tories, God only knows. It is amazing how important principles are when you are in opposition but how irrelevant they are if you can get a fancy job title and a ministerial car.

Of course, the coalition has been a master stoke for the Tories. They have skillfully placed the Liberal Democrats in the firing line for all the unpopular policies, whilst tossing them a few meaningless tidbits of policy to keep the party happy. Lifelong Liberals must be in despair.

But, of course, I voted Tory, so why am I so unhappy? My hope was that the bad old days of Tory dogmatism would be a thing of the past, to be replaced by a determination to do what is right in the interests of the country. Unfortunately, just about everything they have done since the election has been driven entirely by narrow dogma.

On the NHS, the abolition of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) will achieve nothing more than privatising 80% of the NHS budget - it is easy to overlook the fact that the new GP consortia will be private entities. I would not have a problem with this if it will actually achieve something positive for patients. In reality, it will be extremely disruptive and costly and will very likely reduce quality and choice. PCTs are complex organisations with turnovers often running into hundreds of millions of pounds. Exactly what qualifies GPs to run such organisations is beyond me. I have never been to medical school myself but I suspect there is not much on the syllabus about organisational management. If I want my ear syringed, I will go to my GP. I would not go to him for advice on running my business! Certainly some GPs will have a flair for business and will make a success of the new arrangements but we cannot have it both ways. When I go to see my GP, I want his full attention to my medical condition. I do not want him to be rushing me off because he has a board meeting to chair. Is he my GP or my business mentor?

On education, trebling student fees, whilst at the same time slashing the higher education teaching budget by 90%, has nothing to do with cutting the deficit and everything to do with pandering to Daily Mail ranters who believe that a university education should be the preserve of the middle classes and not for the masses. Michael Gove's decision to scrap modules in GCSEs has nothing to do with raising standards and everything to do with reducing the grades achieved so that cynical, middle-aged, middle-class, middle-Englanders can continue to feel superior to the younger generation. Abolishing Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for students from poor families gives the lie to the coalition claims to be progressive, and is yet another example of the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. Their frankly extremely flimsy defence in the student fees debacle is that the new system is fairer to poor students. Yet for youngsters from a poor background, £30 per week EMA can be the key to getting them to do A levels. Abolishing EMA will reduce the numbers of poor students staying on for six form, and, clearly, if the do not stay on, they will not go to university. And Nick Clegg know this.

So, even though I live in a constituency that always returns a Tory with an extremely large majority and so my vote is largely irrelevant, I feel I have been duped into changing my vote. The Tory party clearly has not changed. It is still driven by prejudice and dogma. Come back, Gordon, all is forgiven!

Is a Benign Dictatorship Better Than Western Democracy?

At a party recently a very good friend of mind suggested that a benign dictatorship is a superior form of government to our western democracy. This got me thinking....

Has there ever been a truly benign dictatorship?

Lord Acton's famous phrase 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' springs to mind. It is quite simply a reality of human behaviour that even the most benevolent leaders end up abusing their people when in a position of absolute power.

It is certainly difficult to think of any truly benign dictatorships in the modern world. How about China? According to Amnesty International, human rights abuses are widespread in China. Expect harassment, house arrest, arbitrary detention, torture, even execution, simply for publicly disagreeing with the government. Dictatorship, yes. Benign, certainly not.

Maybe Cuba is better. Don't bet on it. It was only in 2009 that Cubans were for the first time allowed to buy mobile phones and computers for personal use. Access to the Internet remains restricted. It is clear that this type of abuse takes place in the interests of the government and certainly not the people.

Without exception, there is an absence of genuine human rights where the government has absolute power. In Brunei, the Sultan governs with few limits on his power. He controls the security forces, there is arbitrary detention, limits on freedom of speech, and control of media. There is statutory prohibition of challenging in any way the Sultan or members of the royal family. It's easy to dismiss such issues but there would rightly be outrage if anything remotely similar was proposed in Britain or, for that matter, any other genuinely democratic country.

And surely, this is the issue. When making comparisons, you must always compare with a genuine democracy. Many countries pay lip service to democracy but in effect remain dictatorships. Elections of sorts take place in Iran. In 2009 President Ahmadinejad was re-elected but nobody serious considers the vote free and fair. The security forces were implicated in custodial deaths, killings of protestors, torture, beatings and rape. The government continues to administer extremely severe punishments including death by stoning, amputation and flogging.

To be sure, it is simply not possible to design a completely fair electoral system and so to that extent no country has a truly genuine democracy. However, there is no question in my mind that I prefer to live in a country where the key democratic principles are observed and enshrined.

As Winston Churchill once said, 'Democracy is the worse system of government there is - apart from all the others.'

Theology and the Babel fish

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as a Babel fish] could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Fans of Douglas Adams' wonderful novel will know that a Babel fish instantly translates any spoken language into the native language of the hearer when placed inside the ear. Regretably, the Babel fish only exists in Adams' imagination but could there be any truth in his jocular musings about the centrality of faith in theology?

Adams was a prominent atheist but I am sure he was more concerned here with entertainment than proselytising. However, ignorance of theology is extremely common among leading athiests. Here is Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate on religion with Tony Blair:

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sin with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place."

Hitchens is a supremely gifted individual and an extremely engaging speaker but his description here is about as far from Christian theology as it is possible to get. He repeats his phase 'created sick and commanded to be well' for added emphasis but the bible is clear that mankind was created not just good but very good (Genesis 1:31). Importantly, although created good, man was also created with the freedom to be bad, and that is exactly what happened. It was a choice. Adam and Eve had a choice, and we have a choice, but the fact is that we inevitably choose our own way. Original sin is our choice, not God's. According to Hitchens we are commanded to be well. However, God reconciles us to himself by his action, not ours. In a supreme act of love, not anger, God himself in the person of Jesus Christ satisfies perfect justice by paying the price for our rebellion himself. No command to be well again, just a free gift (Romans 6:23).

Returning to Adams, the suggestion is that faith is central to an intellectual analysis of the existence of God but I think this is to miss the point slightly. Certainly, faith is central to Christian theology but I would suggest choice, or free will, is equally important. If God were to appear before you now in a puff of smoke, the God that has existed for all eternity, the God that created the Earth, the stars, the universe, the God encompassing all the energy of the entire inverse, you would no longer require faith in order to accept his existence but neither would you have any meaningful free will. No doubt gripped with terror and awe, I think we would all unquestioningly accept anything he commanded! But, contrary to what Adams and Hitchens would have us believe, God seeks a relationship of freely given love, not domination. This is, of course, why the existence of God can never be proved. If God were a certainty, we would be completely overwhelmed, unable to defy him and, more importantly, unable to freely love him.

How wonderful it would be if the Babel fish really existed but sadly it does not and God does - I think!