2011 is over and 2012 has begun. And with the beginning of a new year comes the beginning of a new focus for the blog. By a new focus, I mean that I am going to be putting a stronger focus on getting things done here at The Master’s Way blog.

We are going to finish the series on Romans and James in the next few months. My goal is to write a post two to three times a week in that series. Once we finish that series, we will move in to a focus on another book of the Bible, although I have not decided what book that will be.

Of course, other topics will be dispersed throughout the year as events and leadings make themselves evident.

I am also going to be rebooting my work over at Examiner.com. I have some ideas associated with my focus there and I am really excited about where I am planning on going. As always, links to my series and articles will be posted here for you to see (and if you like what you see and would be interested in doing some of the same for you own areas of expertise, click here and sign up).

I am also going to be following a 365 day Bible reading plan. Actually, it isn’t a plan, but a book called The 365 Day Devotional Commentary. Needless to say, that is going to be helping in forming some of the posts both here and over at Examiner as well.

So, I hope you are all excited about the direction things will be going here at The Master’s Way and I look forward to your feedback and continued readership!

Also, sorry I haven’t written in a really long time. Things have been nuts at home and blogging as been at the bottom of the list of priorities. I am committed, though, to resuming this thing on a regular basis from here on out!

Book Review: The Book of Books by Melvyn Bragg

By March, people the world over pledged $5.3 billion in donations for reconstruction efforts at a conference held at the U.N. headquarters. This was on top of all of the monies already donated by people via text and through organizations such as World Vision.

But reconstruction was slow.  Anger began to grow in July 2010, merely six months after the quake.  But, on top of all this, beginning in October, there occurred a cholera outbreak. 2,500 people died and the result was violent protests.  Foreign aid workers were blamed for bringing the disease into the country from outside. And, in this still unsettled climate, the presidential election was held, the results of which were inconclusive.  More violent protests followed.

Cholera is still an issue, and will continue to be as the spring and summer months arrive.  Reconstruction is still ongoing.  Clean-up is still incomplete.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1202857.stm

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. (James 1:2-3 ESV)

James begins by urging the reader to cound it “all joy” when we meet the various trials of faith.  That’s interesting because that is not usually how this is read to us at all.  Normally, when our teachers come to this passage, we hear about how we need to consider it a joy to deal with hard times in life, but that is not what James is speaking of.  He is speaking of the trials of life that test our faith.  Although the hard times of life can test our faith, they don’t always.  Sometimes crummy stuff happens and it has no effect on us.  It takes a special kind of hard time to bring us to a crisis of faith.

But we all get there at one time or another and in one manner or another.  Those times will come, and when our faith is tested, we must count it a joy and face the trial head-on, knowing that our faith will be stronger on the other side.  And with this stronger faith comes a stronger ability to withstand the next faith crisis that presents itself.

And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. (v. 4)

To “let steadfastness have its full effect” essentially means to let it effect how you face a crisis of faith.  It’s another way of saying, “Be strong.”  Why? So that you “may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

Let me pause for a moment and make an observation.  In contrast to the manner in which Paul writes, James is much more straightforward.  Unlike Paul, James says what he needs to say in as few words as possible and gets out of the way.  Paul has a tendency to be a little wordy and tell a lot of stories and generally chase a lot of rabbits along the way to his final destination.  Paul is much like our seasoned pastors on Easter or Christmas when they feel they have to give that powerhouse sermon no matter what the cost.  James, on the other hand, is more like when the youth pastor gives the Sunday message and it lasts 10 to 15 minutes and it’s over before you’ve had a chance to even take it all in.  This doesn’t mean James is preferable to Romans or vice versa.  It just means that they have a different style of presenting their material.  James just happens to be much more concise, which means it doesn’t take as much deconstruction for it to make sense.

Back to the text.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. (vv. 5-8)

James goes on to exhort his listeners to ask for God’s wisdom.  Later in the letter, James will expound on what this means.  For now, it is only necessary to know that we should ask God for wisdom because He is generous and won’t get mad at us if we are unable to decide something for ourselves…with one caveat.

We must ask for wisdom in faith, “with no doubting.”  As we struggle through our faith crises, we must remain steadfast and ask God for wisdom.  We must allow the truth that He will give it to us to be an encouragement that what our faith rests in is real and true.  Otherwise, we may misinterpret something as wisdom that is really not wisdom at all and be lead astray.

Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation, because like a flower of the grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. (vv. 9-11)

One of the big themes of James is not showing partiality.  In sort of an allusion to Ecclesiastes, James makes clear that, rich or poor, all will come to the same fate.  But in doing so, James also creates a bit of a tension.  The poor brother is exalted and the rich is humiliated because they will die.  The poor brother is exalted because he loses nothing at death, whereas the rich brother loses all, for, as the saying goes, “You can’t take it with you.”

So are the poor really better off than the rich?  At first glance, it would seem so.  The reality is, though, no.  Both die in the end, so both are on equal footing in the eyes of God.

Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (vv. 12-15)

James begins this section with another word of encouragement to those facing crises of faith and then moves on into another kind of struggle: Temptation.

One of the biggest temptations, especially in our day, is to sort of blame God for our temptations.  We say that God is testing us.  The reality is, though, God doesn’t tempt us.  He may be in sovereign control of all things, even Satan, but God is not the one doing the tempting.  Why?  Because God doesn’t find evil enticing, so He doesn’t try to entice others with it.  Rather, our temptation comes when we desire something that we cannot have.  It seems that James sees the root sin as covetousness rather than idolatry.

But, like Paul, James gives a progression that begins with the first enticement to sin.  In James case, it is desiring something.  We covet something so we do something to get it, which usually means, in some way, denying God’s faithfulness to provide.  But we do it once, we do it again and again and eventually we are killed by that which we thought would bring us life.  So, in reality, the root sin for James is still idolatry, James just seems to be playing to an issue probably felt by the members of his congregation.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (vv 16-18)

James closes this out with a word of encouragement.  That is one thing about James that is much different from Romans.  James bounces back and forth between exhortation and encouragement.  He points out sin and then encourages them that God is still faithful despite their sin.  He does the same here.

After telling the people that their covetousness will lead to their death, he encourages them to remember that God will provide what they want because God is faithful and never changes.  He then reminds them of where they came from.  He reminds them of Egypt, he is writing to Jews after all, and that God brought them all out by his word so that they could be set apart from the rest of the world as His people called to bring His blessing to the whole world.

Not a website for the squeemish regarding theological matters, Monday’s big issue is deffinitely a big one.  In a most provocative tweet, Mr. Wilson linked to the discussion, which was a simple one: list 3 things you’re really pissed off with God about.  Like I said: it’s not for the squeemish, and unless you have a strong stomach for controversy (the title of the post alone, which I didn’t quote here, will get your blood boiling), I highly recommend you not click that link.

As I read through some of the comments during my breaks at work and a few moments ago here at home, I noticed one consistent trend.  Of the things that the agnostic or atheist responders said, and it was a vital key to their disbelief in the almighty, was that they were angry at God for 1) being mysterious and intangible and 2) having followers who act like real @$$holes.

The first is a philosophical issue, and unless one can get past that, I personally doubt that there is ever going to be any hope of a person being able to believe in God.  Of course, one could argue that some fields of science and physics are mysterious and intangible (and the atheist likely believes in those), but that discussion is beyond the scope of what I want to say here.  I want to focus on the second point.

This second point proves something I said a few posts back in the Romans Series.  Paul tells the Romans that God is actually blasphemed among unbelievers because of the way that they are acting.  The discussion over at Soul Pancake, if you can stomach it, proves just how true this really is.  People are literally pushed into disbelief because of the things that we who claim to be Christians do in the name of Jesus.

Need proof but don’t think you can stomach the link?  Here are just a few of the responses:

I’m angry at God for causing people to be so blindly hateful and unforgiving. – AshleyatNYU

For creating people who call themselves Christians who think they and they alone are right. – biblophile91

Pissed you don’t exist. Start existing and come and put an end to people doing terrible shit in your name. – timothytsi

I’ll stop there.  The point is, what we do matters.  It matters in a big way.  When we are “blindly hateful and unforgiving;” when we as individuals act as though we are the only individuals who are right; when we just in general to horrible things in the name of God (such as act like this), we make it harder for people to believe.  We may even make it impossible.  And if we are guilty of pushing people away from God, doesn’t that mean that their blood is on our hands?

But there is something a little deeper going on here as well.  These people are saying that God makes these people do these things.  That He is the cause of it.  How do we counter that?  How do we deal with that?  especially from a Reformed perspective, it becomes really hard to make a consistent argument because…well…with Calvinism’s insistence on God’s sovereignty, technically…well…God is responsible.  Which I think brings to light a flaw in our theology…which we will discuss another time.

If the Christian refuses to live the way of Jesus, it is as though she were never a Christian to begin with.

Rough words, especially in a Christian culture where salvation is based solely on accepting as fact matters that are supposed to be believed through faith. Paul doesn’t stay in the negative, though. He moves on to something much more positive: The subject of God’s faithfulness.

Paul begins by asking a question:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? (Romans 3:1 ESV)

This is a rhetorical question.  Paul is probably asking the question that he knew they would be asking and beating them to the punch.  It’s as if his listeners heard him just rip Jewishness up one side and down the other and say that, in essence, it doesn’t matter how Jewish you are.  If you live like an unbeliever, you will be treated as an unbeliever.  So, Paul turns to deal with this very issue.  He states,

Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. (v. 2)

The first thing that sets Jews apart from Gentiles is that they were chosen by God to receive His law in a written form.  Having the written code was to be viewed as a privilege, not a burden.  The Law is special, and not something that everyone has been given.  The only people who receive God’s word are those whom He has chosen.  I am sure you can see the Christian parallels.

At this point, Paul changes the subject.  He tells these Jewish Christians that they are a special people because God has chosen them for a purpose.  He now moves on to explain his comments about what we talked about last time: that circumcision is pointless if you refuse to live like one of the circumcised.  If one is listening to what Paul is saying, it may sound like he is not making any sense.  Jews are special and chosen and set apart and yet non-Jews are safe because they live more righteously?  ”If God chose us, and not them,” you can hear the Jews saying, “Then how can He be called faithful to us if He saves some of them even though they are not His ‘chosen people’?”  Paul answers this issue.

What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” (vv. 3-4)

Paul says no.  Paul says that God is still faithful to His people even when they are unfaithful to Him.  But this is kind of a backhanded assurance.  Paul has just said that those who live as though they are not God’s people will be treated as though they aren’t.  So, Paul is telling these Jews, in a more subtle manner, the same thing he has been saying over and over again.  God is faithful to those who show that they are His people, whether they be a Jew or a Gentile.  No, someone showing their lack of faith in God and God bringing judgment on them is not faithlessness on God’s part because, obviously, that person is not one of God’s people to begin with and He has no obligations to them.

But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (vv 5-6)

This brief section speaks very clearly to us today.  In the context the church currently finds herself in, there is a growing affinity toward this idea that God will not judge anyone, or that He doesn’t judge.  There is a growing push for the idea that God would be “cruel” or “mean” to pass judgment on the unrighteous.  But, as Paul points out, this is merely a human argument.  God has given His standards to humankind to live by, they are either wriitten on our hearts (if we are Gentiles [ie. non-Jews]) or they have been given to us in written form (if one happens to be a Jew).  We are all without excuse.  We all inherently know the difference between right and wrong and, even when the lines are blurred, as happens in many instances in life, we know where to look for the answers or we have some inkling of an idea as to what the proper course of action is.

If we deliberately choose to do what we know to be wrong, though, God is not “unjust” or “mean” to punish us for those actions.  God is not “unrighteous” if He chooses to punish people for not being obedient.

But, just as we dont choose whether or not God is just or unjust in His judgment, we also cannot choose whether He is just or unjust in His mercy either.  We are wrong if we define God’s love in merely human terms, but we are also wrong if we define His judgment in merely human terms as well.  God’s mercy and God’s judgment are God’s to define and do with as He sees fit.  As God once said to Moses,

“I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” (Exodus 33:19b ESV)

And, later on in Romans, Paul gives his own commentary on this statement:

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Romans 9:16 ESV)

And if this is true of His mercy, then it must also be true of His wrath.  Who or how God judges is not for us to decide, it doesn’t depend on “human will or exertion,” but on God, whose wrath (or mercy) it is to bestow.

But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?–as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. (vv.7-8)

Paul closes this section by addressing an argument that still seems to live on to this day: if it is up to God who is saved and who is condemned, then why does it matter how I live since God will be the one deciding my fate in the end?  A similar argument is used against election and universalism and the sharing of the Gospel.  Of election, it is argued that it undermines the sharing of the Gospel because if God is the one who chooses who will be saved, then the elect will be saved whether we share the Gospel with them or not.  And, of universalism, it is said that it undermines the sharing of the Gospel because, if everyone will be saved anyway, what’s the point of sharing the Gospel?

This is the kind of argument being used here in Romans, and Paul says it is a foolish argument.  What God ultimately chooses to do should play no role in how we live our lives.  There are certain things that we have been called to do, and we should do them simply because God has told us to do them.  No matter what we do, God is faithful and righteous.  He will keep His promises.  Those who are His people will be redeemed and those who aren’t, won’t.  But our obedience matters.  And Paul is still driving this point home even here.

If you wanna keep sinning, Paul says, then so be it.  Your “condemnation is just.”

You then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? (Romans 2:21-22 ESV)

Paul’s point is that there is a reason the Gentiles around them are refusing to hear anything they have to say: it is because they are hypocrites.  If, Paul says, the Law is so good; if you “know [God's] will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth” (vv. 18-20), why aren’t you living by that very same Law?

The Jewish hypocrisy is a problem for two reasons. First,

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. (v. 23)

The main reason religious hypocrisy is a problem is because it dishonors God. If these Jews claim to love the Law, it must be special if they brag about it, then they should be themselves practicing it.   But they aren’t, which is equivalent to giving God the finger. But Paul says there is another reason their hypocrisy is a problem.

For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (v. 24)

It’s interesting that Paul would say this.  God is mocked because of what the believers are doing?   Don’t people deny and mock God because they don’t have the Holy Spirit? That may be theologically true, but that doesn’t mean anything to people who think they have it all together and they are right and everyone else is wrong.  Paul points out the practical reality that the Jews lack of commitment to the Law is turning people away from the way of God.  To Christianize this, Paul would be saying that the reason people are turning from Jesus is because we don’t look like him.  They hear what He says, they may like Him a lot, but they want nothing to do with the faith because of how Christians are living in direct opposition to the way that Jesus would have us to live.  Not a popular argument to make, but it is Biblical, and Paul uses it here to drive home the importance of obedience to the Jews.

Let us stop here for a moment and just think about the ramifications of this for our lives.  As a church, how much is our hypocrisy responsible for turning people off to hearing the Gospel?  What does it say to the world around us when we say that we love our enemies by praying for them to accept Jesus while we drop bombs on them?  What does it say to the non-Christian when we boldly preach against homosexuality while our leaders are caught in homosexual relationships?  What does it say to the unbeliever when we say God is love, but only define His judgment?

When it comes down to it, the way we live has eternal consequences for not only us, but for those around us.  We may claim to have the Gospel, but if we don’t live like it, then we are condemned as though we don’t.  And those around us are condemned too as they deliberately deny the very Gospel we proclaim.

Paul goes on to reiterate this point, which he has been making repeatedly in the first 2 chapters of Romans.

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (vv. 2:25-29)

I think we get what Paul is saying here: the outward sign of being a Jew is worthless without obedience to God’s will.  For us, he would probably say something like simply believing the right stuff is worthless if our lives are not reflective of the way that God wants us to live.  If the Jew breaks the Law, it is as though he were never circumcised.  If the Christian refuses to live the way of Jesus, it is as though she were never a Christian to begin with.

plenty

of

his signature stylization
to drive home

his point.

And, yes, there are plenty of questions.  But these are where the similarities to Rob Bell’s four other books ends.

Unlike his other books, this is not a book necessarily intended to make you feel good.  Some of his questions regarding traditional Christianity’s dogmas and bromides are much more convicting than they are angering.  In fact, unlike, particularly, Velvet Elvis, his goal this time doesn’t seem to be to dismantle traditional beliefs and establish new ones, but rather to offer another alternative on what, when all is said and done, are not essential doctrine for one’s salvation.  What Rob Bell does is embrace the traditional conceptions of heaven and hell while simultaneously making it possible to disagree with them and not feel like one is a freak or a damned heretic.  But he doesn’t stop there.

Once making it pretty clear with a ton of Scripture to prove it that what you believe about heaven and hell, whether a traditionalist or not, is not essential, he tells you, in no uncertain terms (another separation from his first book) what is essential: repentance and faith in Jesus accompanied by a desire to follow Him.  One may or may not like Bell, but it is hard to see this book as doing anything other than sharing the gospel.

The content of the book is simple and straightforward, which is another departure from his other books (with the exception of Jesus Wants to Save Christians).  You come away from this book with little question about what matters to Bell.  It isn’t heaven.  It isn’t hell.  It is Jesus.  Jesus is really the focus of the book.  Yes, it is “a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who has ever lived,” but none of this is worth mentioning if Jesus is absent.

If people are going to have a problem with the book, it is going to come in the chapter in which he addresses heaven and the one in which he addresses hell.  For Rob, heaven and hell are not only future spiritual realities, but they are also present realities that one can live in now, and both are simultaneously present in our world today and can be standing as close as the person right next to you.

To illustrate this, he uses the story of the prodigal son.  At the party celebrating the son’s return, the good brother is upset that he has never even been given a snack with his friends from his dad and yet the bad brother gets a fattened calf and a party.  The dad’s response is, “He left and came back, but you have always been here and all that I have has been your’s all along.”  When the bad son came back, he was simply gonna ask if he could be his dad’s slave and yet his dad ran to meet him and put sandles on his feet and a robe on his back.  Rob Bell looks at this and says that these sons have a choice between two stories: the ones they are telling about themselves (“I’m only worthy to be a slave” and “I’ve slaved for you all along and I get nothing”) or the one the father is telling them (“You are my son and have been all along”).  To accept the father’s story is to embrace heaven (read: God).  To accept their own stories is to forsake their father and choose hell.  To embrace heaven for these sons is to benefit from being the father’s son, and to embrace hell is to forsake all of that and receive nothing.  I am sure you can make the logical progression to see how these are present/future (“now” and “then” are the words Bell uses) realities.

I completely understand how this can make people, particularly conservatives, very uncomfortable.  We are not used to talk of hell, particularly, as being anything in our present world.  Or at least we don’t tend to give the hells of this life the same emphasis as the hell of the next, which is a point Bell makes again and again, and he aims the convicting remarks at more liberal Christians as well.  In his words:

Often the people most concerned about others going to hell when they die seem less concerned with the hells on earth right now, while the people most concerned with the hells on earth right now seem the least concerned about hell after death…There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously (79).

This idea of heaven and hell being present both now and then is key to understanding this book.  Every comment he makes about heaven and hell is not talking about what happens after we die.  Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t.  But he doesn’t necessarily tell you explicitly when he alternates between the two.  I think he hopes his readers are smart enough to follow his illustrations, which are pretty straightforward, and make the logical connections.

When it comes down to it, he never once denies the Biblical posture of hell, but he does throw water on the traditional one.  In the chapter on hell, he points out that the Hebrew Scriptures don’t have that concept and the New Testament is more ambiguous than what we are usually taught.  In light of this, it is easy to see how he could be interpreted as denying it.  Rather, what he wants the reader to do is form a Biblical picture of hell instead of assuming the traditional one.  He never says that hell doesn’t exist.  And he never says that it is empty.  For seven to ten pages, he lays out the Scriptural foundation for a modified form of universal reconciliation, but it is no universalism.  In the picture he paints, even at the end of time, when the new Jerusalem has been established on earth, when people are offered final reconciliation, some still choose hell over being with God and God lets them go.

Which is what Bell means when he says “Love wins.”  He is not saying that there is no judgment (he says repeatedly, in so many words, that God hates sin and there is a day coming when judgment will be rendered).  What Bell is saying is that for God to love us, he must give us freedom.  For Rob Bell, if you love someone you do for them what will make them the happiest.  If someone does not want anything to do with God, then they don’t have to be with Him.  He will not force Himself to be accepted.  God gets what He wants and love wins.  God wants everyone to be saved, but we make that call, not him.

Calvinists will cringe at this language, and it may be why they assume universalism of him.  After all, we all know that everyone who is not a Calvinist is a universalist.  Bell refers repeatedly to the many passages of Scripture that refer to “all” and “everyone.”  But he doesn’t do so to prove that everyone gets saved.  His emphasis on these is to prove that the gospel is for everyone.  No matter who you are, what your religion or any other defining mark, Jesus died for everyone, no exceptions.  All sin is paid for.  You just have to accept and join that narrative.  That’s Bell’s message.

In fact, the last chapter of the book says as much.  The whole chapter is about how whoever you are, wherever you are, your choices matter.  What you do in this life has ramifications for the next.  Then he offers a choice:

Time does not repeat itself.  Neither does life.  While we continually find grace waiting to pick us up off the ground after we have fallen, there are realities to our choices.  While we may get other opportunities, we won’t get the one right in front of us again.  That specific moment will pass and we will not see it again.  It comes, it’s here, it goes, and then it’s gone.  Jesus reminds us in a number of ways that it is vitally important we take our choices here and now as seriously as we possibly can because they matter more than we can begin to imagine.

Whatever you’ve been told about the end - the end of your life, the end of time, the end of the world – Jesus passionately urges us to live like the end is here, now, today (197).

The book is controversial.  To question conventional wisdom, even when it is flawed, is always going to be.  And if you want Rob Bell to be a universalist, there are plenty of quotes that, when pulled from their narrative context, will say as much.  But that isn’t the point.  Rob Bell’s point is that he wants all of us to experience God’s love in our lives here and in the life to come and that the way to have that experience is to repent, trust, and follow Jesus Christ.  what you believe about heaven, hell, the end of the world are non-essential.  What is essential is what you do with Jesus.  In this regard, Love Wins is a win for Rob Bell.