The Skeletons in God's Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment, the Hope of Holy War

A couple friends and I read this as part of a book club, so I'll use some of my comments about it that I sent to them as my review. But I'll just sum it up by saying I think this book hurts the church, and hides the truth. As I said in my review to my friends, one good thing about it is it has made me want to read the scriptures more thoroughly. And this, I think, would please Josh.My friend wrote me his thoughts on the book, and I thought this also summed up my thoughts well:"Overall, I feel that the author takes the approach that he does to justify his concern for social issues, and to do PR for God. Too often the care of fellow believers is overlooked when the church focuses on 'serving the world.' This, in my mind, is backwards."There are many things that are hard to understand for me in the Bible, and killing family members for idolatry, or killing children while invading Canaan is not easy to deal with. But at the same time, I need mercy to see with better eyes than my own. I can't imagine being in those times, and I have wondered if I could do some of those things. But if God was leading them to do it (and this is the very argument against religion from all my atheist friends here), shouldn't it be done? There are terrifying implications to obedience to God and they are very contrary to our ways of thinking. We might think we are more merciful than God but will we even really forgive someone for sinning against us without God causing that grace to take shape within us? We are murderers for anger. I don't know if the armies were angry when they invaded Canaan, or scared."Yep, God's definitely got some skeletons in his closet - or at least we think so...Opening the door can be intimidating. If we pull these bones out of the closet and take a cold, hard look, the God we have come to love and serve might not be found worth loving and serving. And deep down we know our faith couldn't handle the betrayal." (Skeletons)The problem with this way of writing is that it makes it sound as if we are to judge whether God is good or loving according to notions we have about good and evil. When even Christians are evil, and we misjudge things all the time, what basis is he using to decide whether God would be evil or good apart from the Bible? I would add that the word "faith" he uses here would not be faith in God if by the teachings of the Scriptures we were betrayed.One thing that bothered me was his constant mistreatment of those who preached a simple soul-salvation gospel as opposed to a social-justice focused gospel."Were all my Buddhist friends (whose generosity, courage, and sacrifice put me to shame) really bound for judgment predominantly because of the time and place into which they were born, while this Thai pastor and visiting missionary (who both came across to me a bit closed-minded, arrogant, and self-righteous) were destined for salvation simply because of the "which religion are you?" box they would check on a questionnaire?"To be sure this reflects the culture accurately. The issue is that a Christian is reflecting the culture of bitterness against the issue of soul verses quality of life, and proclaiming that the call to minister in terms of soul salvation as opposed to social injustice is self-righteous and arrogant. If the two men here classified as arrogant and self-righteous are true Christians, they would know that there is nothing righteous about them other than Christ's righteousness, and that they are saved by Christ crucified, not checks in boxes. But Josh here attributes to them what no true Christian would attribute to themselves. If there is any reason to classify them the way he did, it was not given in this text. And I think it hurts the church to mimic the culture's thoughts on God's people when the culture is ultimately bound to hate God and his ways, and his people, until Christ opens their eyes.Josh purposely uses the word torture throughout the book instead of judgment or punishment (which he explains somewhat in Loose Ends) and it seems disingenuous to do so. While the idea of hell is horrible and true, I have not thought of God as torturing people, though the scriptures indicate some force of wrath, and that it is forever. In the Bible, not in this book, it is presented as just and right. Josh's method here makes this idea odious.The main reason I wanted to write this review now is that Josh's new book is coming out. And watching the video for it reminded me that the effort to reach the lost is never to be at the cost of losing the truth, or harming the church. Paul suffered what he suffered for the elect (which includes the regenerate church as well as those yet to be born again), not the world. Jesus prayed for his own, not the world. Yet we are sent out to the world, to make disciples. The world is to recognize Christ's disciples by their love for one another, not their love for the world.I don't know Josh that well, but from what I know I'd agree with what Pastor Rick says about him in the Foreword, "He has the mind of a theologian, the heart of a poet, and the hands of a missionary." And I mainly know him for those last two. Only I would add the words, "potentially liberal or emergent" before the word "theologian.""Scripture doesn't hide the challenging parts; it proclaims them boldly." (Skeletons) This sentence is strengthening. But I think it is the opposite of what this book does.

I like Butler's conversational style, and generally appreciate his research and examination of difficult passages. But at times while reading this book I felt as if he is just uncomfortable with some of God's actions in the Old Testament (aren't we all?), and that this discomfort drives him to help God out a little. He seems to feel the need to soften some passages or explain them away. An example is Butler's treatment of the instructions of God to Joshua and the Israelites to not leave anything alive in Jericho (except Rahab and her family, of course). I felt that by diminishing the scope and severity of these orders (and subsequent actions) he runs the risk of missing some important purposes God intended. Yes, these difficult passages in the Old Testament make postmodern readers wince. Perhaps this was God's intent and for good reason. Perhaps this reminds us that God is not to be trifled with, that he means what he says, or that sin is very serious to him, or that redemption (as illustrated in Rahab) is precious, or that the Old Testament law is, as Paul suggested, a "law of death" in contrast to the new covenant of life. The old would be “brought to an end” with the greater glory of what “is permanent”: a “new covenant” which “far exceed[s] it.” Paul says, this old covenant of “the letter kills, but the [new covenant of] the Spirit gives life.” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6-18). I also felt while reading that he was cherry-picking "evidence" from history and archeology and practiced some interpretational gymnastics. For me at times it just didn't pass the smell test. What’s wrong with stating that—even though we might not like it—there are many possible reasons for God commanding Israel to do this atrocious act? Perhaps God wanted to provide a clear visual for judgment because they (and we) should be afraid of what his judgment is like. Perhaps the inhabitants of Jericho, as Canaanites (truly barbarous people who were renowned for their evil) were raised up to be his "vessels of wrath" (Rom. 9:21-23). In Gen. 15:16, God told Abraham that even though the Canaanites were bad in his time, they would get much worse. He would wait 430 years before their iniquity would have “reached its limit.” At that point, the land would “vomit them out” (Lev. 18:25ff). Although we don’t like to hear it today, sin deserves judgment, and excessive sin is met with severe penalties. According to Lev.18, Israel's taking part in meting out God’s judgment on those who had filled the land with sin, would serve as a vivid reminder to them not to follow the Canaanites’ example lest they also be “vomited out” (as they did—and were). Even though they were chosen, they must choose obedience. Perhaps God sometimes asks his people to do what is hard or what does not make sense to us, as either a test or an object lesson they would otherwise not learn. It is God’s prerogative to determine what is right and righteous, good and holy. We are completely bound to comply with his definition & standards, not our own subjective, fallible, feeble opinions of such. Sometimes obedience doesn’t make sense. He asked Abraham to kill his only son. He asked Hosea to marry a prostitute. These are pictures of what he would do himself. Perhaps there is a greater good, and this terrible thing is a necessary part. We do not have the advantage of omniscience or even future-telling to gain a long-view of things. God’s plan included raising up a family through a man (who simply believed) that would become a nation through whom he would bless the whole world. Israel served as the "main character," as it were, in God's metanarrative of redemption. This one little piece of the story is just that. A lesson along the way in God’s story of a very real side of God—his ultimate, absolute authority, and the ruthless judgment of all who reject him. We don't like it, but there is more to God than love and grace. In fact, ultimate love and grace abound when sin and judgment are present. Perhaps we just can’t know the mind of God. Perhaps, when all our explanations and logic fail, that should be enough!The book is a worthy read. I just wish it were less apologetic and more theological.These are just a few of the thoughts in my mind that I felt were not adequately explored by Butler. Instead it seems the approach was to say, in effect, “Those hard things in the Old Testament? They really weren’t THAT bad.” I just think this approach can miss the point.

The title of the book smacks you in the face and makes you ask “really?” Butler holds back no punches and it’s probably the most helpful apologetic book I have read on the subject of hell, judgement and holy war. Its refreshing to read a book that isn’t afraid to get to the grit and dirt of these hard questions. He presents each section of the book in an upfront way and lays down his argument drawing on scripture and experience.What is great about this book is that it's easy to read - You won’t need a theology degree or a phd to understand this book. Butler has written it in an accessible way for all to be able to read and understand. This is the kind of book you could gladly give to your non-Christian friends and those in your church. Saying that, it is a challenging read and will make you think about the way you see these three questions and how you would answer them.This is certainly a book worth reading and for me it really challenged me on how I see the subject of hell, judgement and holy war.

the challenges that this book takes on are what many christians will think about in their lifetime, unless they live like hermits. They are also thrown at us by our friendsi found this very helpful.

Great book, well written, interesting, informative and enjoyable.

Not sure I currently agree with everything in (or not in) the book, but it is an excellently written, passionate and thoroughly thought through meditation on the goodness of God versus the shallow caricatures you find in the West.

Excellent