Why God But Not Thor? (or, "Pagan gods are Marvel Superheroes")

I was once asked by someone, “What makes your religion more valid than any other one? And also, why [isn’t it] considered myth like the older religions that make the same claims?”

I'd had discussions with this person before, so I could guess a little bit about what was behind his question. He was wondering why Christians will say that the God of the Bible is real but the other gods and goddesses of pagan mythology are not. Since Christianity and pagan religions supposedly all make the same claims, shouldn't we all consider Christianity to be a myth just as easily as we consider the pagan gods to be myths?

Here is part of my reply:

First, this question contains an assumption that I reject. Your question implied Christianity has the same elements, teachings and details as pagan myths. I know that this is a common assertion from some atheists, especially on the internet. People point to supposed parallels between Jesus and other dying and rising gods and suggest Christianity is just borrowing the same themes and therefore isn’t true. If that is what the question meant, then I reject that part of the question because I don’t believe that Christianity actually does make the same claims as pagan mythology. The similarities are very superficial and often forced. Also some of these supposed sources for Christianity actually come after the time of the New Testament. (If there are specific myths and details that you are thinking of, let me know. There are a lot of obscure myths and I can’t guess them in advance to deal with them.) Also, I need to add that even if it were true that Christianity had the same specific details as many older pagan myths, it wouldn’t actually prove that Christianity was false.  If there were movies made in the 20th Century about skyscrapers being destroyed by terrorists, that wouldn’t mean that the destruction of the World Trade Center was false or invented based on these stories.

Now, let me give you one major reason why I believe the pagan gods fail as being valid. Simply, the pagan gods aren’t even “Gods.” Sure, they have power and abilities, but they are limited. They are closer to Marvel superheroes than to the God of the Bible.

The pagan gods don’t actually explain anything. They don’t provide a sufficient reason the explain why the world exists. This is because the pagan gods are not eternal. Apollo is the son of Zeus. Zeus was the son of Cronus, and so on. So, none of these gods ultimately explains anything because each of them needs something else to explain them. On the other hand, the God of the Bible is of an entirely different quality. He is not a Marvel superhero. The God of the Bible is not only omnipotent, and omniscient, but also eternal. Because He is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing) He has the power and wisdom needed to design and create the world. But even more importantly, He is eternal. Since God did not have a beginning, He did not need anything or anyone to create Him. If you’ve always existed, you don’t need to be created. Because the God of the Bible is eternal, He is a “sufficient reason” for everything else. The pagan superhero gods are not.

If you needed someone else to make you, don’t even claim to be a real God. The real God is in an entirely different category.

Christian Urban Legend: All Sins are Equal

For some reason this idea has ingrained itself in the thinking of most American Christians. When the topic of sin is brought up, you will quickly hear someone say one of these lines:

"Sin is sin."
"All sins are equal."
"There is no gradation of sin."
or "All sins are the same in God's eyes."

This is said with such confidence and conviction that you would assume there is a clear Bible verse that bluntly states this.  But the truth is, there is not. Now, James 2:8-11 teaches us that any sin makes one a lawbreaker--either we keep the law perfectly, or we do not.  No one should think they can stand before a holy God and claim that they are okay in His sight because they only committed the "ligher" sins.  This passage teaches that all sins have the equal effect of separating us from God, but it is not teaching that all sins are equal in every way. 

The truth is that Jesus Himself taught that not all sins are equal.  Jesus spoke of a "greater sin." 

"Jesus answered him, 'You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.'" -John 19:11

However you interpret this, it cannot mean that Jesus believed that no sins are greater than any other sins.  There are other passages that teach this as well (such as Ezek. 8:6,13,15; Matt. 5:19; 23:23) but I believe this statement by Jesus in John 19:11 is enough to close the case. 

I've had people get very mad at me for even suggesting this.  One person clearly jumped to the conclusion that if you believed this you would immediately start judging everyone around you.  So, if this concept is new to you, please consider all three points I am about to make before passing judgment on me for being a judgmental person.  I believe this because it is what Jesus teaches, not because I like the idea that I am better than everyone else.  In fact, the opposite is true.  I think that many of my sins are far worse than those of many others people because I know full well what I'm doing. 

Let me give a few key points.

1. There is a sense in which all sins are infinitely terrible.

I realize that this goes against what I am arguing, but I believe this is true as well.  Every sin, even those we consider light, are sins against an infinitely holy God.  This means that even the "smallest" sin is infinitely terrible.  Every sin is spitting on God with our heart.  Every sin is saying to God and the world, "God, you are worth less than this other thing I choose instead of you."  Every sin is infinitely worthy of punishment and this is why none of us could ever finish paying off the penalty for even the "smallest" sin.

2. There is another sense in which some sins are greater than others.

Jesus spoke of a "greater sin."  Some sins are judged differently in the Bible.  It also makes sense.  All other things being equal, it is worse to murder a child someone than to speed.  This doesn't mean than either are "okay" but one is obviously worse.   

All sins being equal in weight would lead to ridiculous conclusions.  Is it really better to kill a child than to speed twice?  If all sins were equal in weight, then speeding twice would be worse because it is two sins, while the murder is only one sin.  Come on? 

Points one and two seem like they contradict each other, but here is how I explain it.  In one sense they are the same but in another sense they are different.  All sins are infinitely bad, but some are like an infinitely tall stack of pennies or dimes and others are like an infinitely tall stack of quarters.  Both are infinite, but there is a difference in magnitude.

3. God does not give us the complete formula for judgment.

It is not a good idea to start ranking sins.  God does not give us the formula, or the ability, to calculate the weight of sins.  There is no logarithm in Scripture where we can fill in all the variables and crank out a total adjusted value for each sin.  We have no way of knowing one sin is a 65 but another sin comes out as a 489.  God knows the full weight.  We do not.  Only God can search the heart of each person to take into account their motives and attitudes.  Only He knows how much a person is aware of what they are doing and total circumstances that might mitigate or magnify the rebellion. 

This is incredibly important to grasp.  It means that you and I are not responsible to be the final judges.  It also means that just because someone believes that sins have different weight does not mean that he or she intends to judge everyone else like some sort of spiritual accountant. 

Having said that, there are some things we can know which make some sins heavier than others.  Many of these factors are internal.  Also please note the critical importance of the phrase "all else being equal."

• All else being equal, a "high handed" sin is greater than a less intentional sin.  (Numbers 15:30)
• All else being equal, it is a greater sin to sin against greater light than to sin against weaker light.  (See for example Matthew 11:20-24.)  The more we are aware of God and the seriousness of sin, the greater the weight of the sin.  (Yet no one sins in complete darkness.) 
• All else being equal, the more responsibility and authority being abused, the greater the sin.
• All else being equal, the greater our influence, the greater the sin.  (See for example James 3:1)
• All else being equal, a sin that is acted upon is a greater than a sin that is just in the heart.  (Yet both are sin and neither is okay.)
• All else being equal, a sin with a greater scope of damage is greater than a sin with a lesser scope of damage.
• All else being equal, a sin that does eternal damage is greater than a sin that only has temporary consequences. 
• All else being equal, sins of greater unbelief are worse than sins of less unbelief.
• All else being equal, some sins are greater depending on the mixture of motives.  The list goes on...

Many of the sins we think are small and actually big.  The "small" sins of a mature Christian might be more serious to God than the "bigger" sin of someone else.  Perhaps this is why Paul thought of himself as the chief of all sinners (1 Tim. 1:15-16).  Again, before you try to decide who is worse, the preacher or the prostitute, please remember that only God knows how all of these factors work together. 

Although we can't judge sin perfectly on this earth, Church elders are called upon to use Biblical wisdom in matters of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Heb. 13:17).  As Kevin DeYoung has pointed out, we can't let church leadership become paralyzed so that "the elder who battles the temptation to take a second look at the racy section of the Lands’ End catalog shouldn't dare exercise church discipline on the 20-year old fornicating with every co-ed that moves."

Still, the best use of this knowledge is not for others, but for ourselves.  All Christians are a mixed bag.  None of this is meant to excuse any sin, in others or ourselves.  We all need to repent of any known sin, and we need to ask the Spirit to search our hearts to show us the sins hiding in the deep cracks.

Where did this myth come from?

I think there have been good motives and bad motives to see all sins as equal.  Some of this originated in response to the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins.  All sin makes us worth of condemnation apart from Jesus.  In addition, other good motives include the need for humility, the need to avoid wrongheaded judgmentalism, and the need to remember that no sin in the Christian life should be tolerated. 

On the other hand, I believe there are also unhealthy reasons why this belief is so rampant.  Some people want all sins to be equal so that they can think their own sins are less serious than they really are.  "Hey, all sins are equal. Therefore my illicit sex is no worse than speeding."  Others know the skeletons they have in their closets.  And in today's climate, many Christians are petrified at the idea of being thought of as judgmental.  For many, the flattening of all sin makes it much easier to feel good about one's self as a warm and non-judgmental person.

All sin is grievous, and some especially so. God will judge everything perfectly in the end.

My Only Criticism of Mike Wittmer's Book

I have one main criticism of Mike Wittmer's new book Christ Alone: An Evangelical Response to Rob Bell's Love Wins.  Tragically, this book breaks Wittmer's streak of books with titles shared with 80's rock songs.  His previous books were Heaven is a Place on Earth and Don't Stop Believing.  Unfortunately, this book missed the chance to continue the streak using the 80's title: You Give Love a Bad Name. That would have been perfect.

Another option could have been Love Hurts, but that song is from the mid-seventies so it doesn't work. Plus, a derogatory title would have been a terrible idea. One of the strengths of this book is that it avoids attacking Rob Bell as a person even while explaining deep concerns with his theology. It doesn't fight straw men with straw men but instead deals with the deep issues with a combination of respect, insight, and conviction. Christ Alone is an ideal book for people thinking through the eternal issues raised in Love Wins. Wittmer helps us to see that the Bible's message is not embarrassing but a compelling story that fits the reality of God's holiness and the darkness of the human heart.

There are several excerpts from Christ Alone at the book's website http://www.christalonebook.com/.
      
This books reminds us that any message we give people is only loving if it is true. I've heard a lot of people say that no one should pass judgment on Rob Bell's book without reading it. I hope that these same people have the same openness to Mike Wittmer's reply. If you are someone who has read Love Wins and found it persuasive, I plead with you to read this book as well. Please don't say, "I don't need to read that book. I already know what it says." And if you do say that, please remember that when someone gives you the same reply about not reading Love Wins.

I highly recommend this book, even though I'm still depressed that it breaks Mike Wittmer's streak of titles that happen to be 80's rock songs. Therefore I vow that if I ever invent a time machine and go back to the 80's one of my main priorities will be to join a hair band and record a one hit wonder titled Christ Alone: An Evangelical Response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. 

Related: Sentimentality Wins: A Short Summary of Rob Bell's Love Wins

The Epic Finale!

A few years ago we started making superhero videos for the kids in our church for several VBS programs we wrote.  They were a lot of fun and there is actually some good theology embedded in them.  (The message comes through the best when you see them all together.)  The kids really like these videos and we have given away hundreds of DVDs. My own kids are demanding that I make more of these and Eric is very concerned about what is going to happen to the Princess.

We actually have a lot of fun making these, even though it is a lot of work.  I write them and do the editing and effects as well.  It's fun seeing what we can pull off on our own.  

This is the 10th and final part of the last series that we did.  (There were five episodes, split in half for YouTube.)  You can see the whole thing from the start at http://www.youtube.com/PowermanMosquitoboy.  You can also be a fan of Powerman & Mosquitoboy on facebook.

Sentimentality Wins: A Short Summary of Rob Bell's Love Wins

There are more detailed reviews of Rob Bell's Love Wins online, but I am writing this one to give a brief summary for those who are curious to know what Bell is really saying and what he isn't in Love Wins. Some accuse Bell of being a universalist, but Bell himself denies it. Some say that Rob Bell denies the existence of hell, but Bell says he affirms a real hell. It can be hard for people to know what the real issues are. Bell's position is more specific than what is often presented--by others or by Bell himself in interviews. We need to make sure that we do not accuse him of things he is not saying nor give him a free pass for what he does teach. There is more that could be said, but I intend this post to be a survey of the main issues rather than a critique.

The bottom line is that Bell is promoting the idea that every single person will eventually be reconciled to God either in this life or the next. Some people will exist in some sort of "hell" both in this life and the next until God melts their heart and they accept His love. Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least in some sense.  However, Bell's idea of hell and his view of how Jesus saves us might be very different from what you would consider a correct Biblical understanding.

Universalism

Bell is adamant that he is not a universalist. However, this all depends on what we mean when we use this term. This term does not have positive associations in many of the circles that Bell is still influential in and so it is understandable that he would want to distance himself from it. Bell must mean that he is not a universalist in the sense of other universalists who teach that all people will be saved despite their relationship to God, or that this salvation can come through all (or at least many) religions apart from Christ. However, the entire thrust of Love Wins is that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God, either in this life or the next. The logic that Bell presents in chapter 4, "Does God Get What God Wants" is that God always gets what He wants, and that since God wants everyone to be reconciled to Him, eventually every single person will eventually be reconciled to Him. Love wins. So, if by universalism you simply mean that every single person will eventually be reconciled to God, then yes, Rob Bell is a universalist. However, to be fair, Bell is not teaching that everyone is automatically spared from "hell" when they die, regardless of their relationship to God.  He is also not teaching that Christ is unnecessary for salvation. 

Hell

Bell affirms that hell is real and that many people will spend time in hell. He also affirms that there is some sort of future hell beyond this life, although not in the traditional sense. For Bell, hell starts in this life with the misery that comes from being apart from the life of God.  Bell defines hell as "the very real consequences we experience when we reject the good and true and beautiful life that God has for us" (95). For example, Bell states:

"People choose to live in their own hells all the time. We do it every time we isolate ourselves, give the cold shoulder to someone who has slighted us, every time we hide knives in our words, every time we harden our hearts in defiance of what we know to be the loving, good, and right thing to do" (114). 

Therefore Bell's hell in the afterlife might not be all that much different than the type of "hell" he believes people live in during this life. For Bell, hell is clearly not punishment from God. He mocks the idea that God is saving us from God's anger.  Hell is not punishment from God, but is more like a self-imposed "time out" whereby we force ourselves to sit in the corner and be miserable until we're ready to come to the birthday party.  Eventually, everyone will warm up to God and come out of the corner. The consequences for rejecting God's love are basically self-imposed and temporary. Although the Bible uses terms like "eternal punishment" Bell attempts to argue that this should be translated as "a period of pruning" or "a time of trimming" (91). So Bell affirms some sort of future hell, but it is neither eternal nor punishment.

In his chapter on hell, Bell claims to deal with every single mention of the word hell in the Bible (69).  Amazingly, despite this claim, nowhere in this chapter does Bell even mention Revelation 20:15 which states, "If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."  The only mention of this comes in a later chapter.  Bell mentions the lake of fire, states that Revelation was written in a heavily symbolic way, and moves on (112). 

Jesus Christ and the Cross

Jesus is necessary for salvation, at least in some sense, although maybe not like you would assume.  Commenting on John 14:6 (“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me") Bell 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. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (154). [I have to point out that Bell writes this as if this statement is detached from all the other statements about belief in the Gospel of John.] 

Bell is not teaching that absolutely all roads lead to God, but he does think that the road is wider than Christianity. Bell states, "He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain him, especially the one called 'Christianity'" (150). People need Jesus, however, "He is present within all cultures" (151). Bell states, "There is an energy in the world, a spark, an electricity that everything is plugged into" and that Jesus, as the creative Word of God, is "the energy that gives life to everything" (144-5). Bell leaves it open that people may be saved with an idea of "Jesus" that might be no clearer than this. As Bell states at one point, "Sometimes people use his name; other times they don't" (159). 

Another question is how Christ saved us? The fifth chapter of Love Wins focuses on the importance of the cross. Over several pages Bell lists and describes many of the things that the cross is about: the end of the sacrificial system, reconciliation, justification (in some sense at least), victory over evil, and redemption (123-9). Bell is correct that the cross is about many things, but conspicuously absent from Bell's list is the idea that Jesus took our penalty as a substitute. Propitiation would imply that "the gods are angry" which of course God is not. For Bell, God does not have wrath toward sinners, but always and only love. Bell states that when Jesus spoke of "the coming wrath" and "judgment" He was referring to the wrath of the Romans if people provoked them (81). God never punishes, but only seeks to restore. In another place Bell writes:

"Many have heard the gospel framed in terms of rescue. God has to punish sinners, because God is holy, but Jesus has paid the price for our sins, and so we can have eternal life. However true or untrue that is technically or theologically, what it can do is subtly teach people that Jesus rescues us from God. Let's be very clear, then: we do not need to be rescued from God" (182).

If Jesus didn't die on the cross as our substitute to satisfy God's holiness and justice, then what was the purpose of the cross? Yes, it accomplished reconciliation and redemption and other effects, but how? Why couldn't Bell's God do these things without the cross? Bell doesn't explain. The closest thing I have found to an explanation is Bell's statement that, "The resurrection of Jesus inaugurates a new creation" (133). This statement comes after a long description of the mysterious death-to-life pattern embedded in fabric of creation. Jesus died so he could rise and inaugurate a new creation . . . whatever that means.

In Conclusion

There is much more that could be said, but I would like to keep this a thumbnail sketch. If this were intended to be a critique, I would have included many reasons why the views Bell is promoting are in error. In a perfect world Christians would be well grounded enough in the Word of God that these errors would be self-apparent once they understood Bell's position. Sadly, this is not the case. May God use Rob Bell's book to drive Christians to the Scriptures.

Bell is right when he states that the bigger issue behind all of this is the question "What is God like?" May we look to the Bible to see all that God has revealed to us about Himself. When that happens, we will see that the Love that wins in the end is God's holy and just love. God is love, and He does win in the end--although not as Bell presents it.  Because of that, I don't even want to concede to Bell the title of his book. What Bell describes as "love" is a distortion of man. A more accurate title for Bell's book would be Sentimentality Wins.