Posts
I just finished reading Rob Bell's controversial book, Love Wins. I must be living under a rock, because I innocently picked up the book sitting at an office I was visiting, while doing some work thinking that it might offer some marriage guidance. I didn't know who the owner of the book was and I didn't know the author. Little did I know what I was in for. I am one who, given the time and circumstance loves to discuss and think about the more esoteric matters of faith, theology and apologetics, but for better or worse in recent years, find myself just trying to live life as the good Lord intends. Consequently, anything of substance I read tends to be related to marriage or family or a work project (this generously assumes this blog counts as "work"). My initial interest in improving marriage was quickly supplanted with an old curiosity and an intellectual excursion unlike anything I've visited since my college years. This book was as fascinating as it was frustrating.
First of all let me give my read on Bell's perspective. Bell often emphasizes what we can't know over what we can. Like the bible this is a book that you should not read or critique by the page. It should be consumed as a whole. And critiquing a book as a whole is a very difficult thing. The critics want to focus on his statements regarding hell to imply he believes there is no Hell as evangelicals believe Hell to be. He starts easy and simple, just like we like it: "Do I believe there is a literal Hell? Of course." (p71) Then he eases into a literal hell as seen in the "empty eyes" of a drug attic, the depression resulting from sexual abuse or the angst and confusion of an innocent young child whose father has committed suicide. In doing so, he seems to suggest that Hell is here on earth and it is comprised of choices that are made apart from God's best. His final definition of Hell is when "...we choose not to live in God's world, in God's way...". (p93) I have to say that biblically I would agree both temporily and eternally that hell is the absence of God and the increasing misery that comes with an increasing absence of all that is good. If Bell were saying that there is no Hell, as the evangelical community thinks of it, then I would say there is heresy. I am not convinced that this heretical claim is being made, at least not here. The critics seem to ignore the fact that not only does he never make the statement that there is no hell, quite the opposite he later states to the question of Hell's existence, "There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously." (p79) Additionally, he has clearly and unequivocally stated that he is not a Universalist. He also indicates both in the book and other places that it is not irrelevant how we respond to the person of Christ. In fact, he indicates that it is “terribly relevant”. These are all statements to which mainline evangelicalism would respond positively.
Now my read on the evangelical perspective. Where my evangelical friends will begin to “raise concern” with Bell, to put it gently - and approach “heresy” to state it boldly - is in what Bell is not willing to say. And this is where 2 items Bell brought together struck me as food for prayer and consideration. First, Bell brings the story in the old testament (Exodus 17) where the Israelites have been complaining, as they frequently did, to Moses as they head in their self-directed and meandering way, toward God's promised land. Their primary concern - at least this time, is about there being no drinking water. God tells Moses to take a handful of the leaders to Horeb and strike the Rock, where water will flow. Moses strikes the rock, water flows. Secondly, Bell notes that the apostle Paul then ties this episode referenced in First Corinthians 10 to the person of Jesus Christ. Paul ties Christ not as a "type" of Christ, but the very literal Rock by stating, "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and that rock was Christ." Bell ties this new testament warning to the old testament story and notes that "...Christ was present in that moment....giving, quenching sustaining..." through a rock. Now I'm no theologian, but if the apostle Paul is suggesting that Christ was sustaining the Old Testament Israelites spiritual condition (even as they were under the law) through a rock that was Christ, then is it perhaps possible that same Christ can communicate a gospel message toward an unsaved spiritual condition through other means as well? Does not Romans 1 tell us his eternal power and divine nature can be seen in nature? Does the bible not say that if we seek, He will be found? (Deuteronomy 4:29, Matt 7:7) I see no heresy here in what Rob Bell says. The heresy lies in what we hear and how we attach to it something he does not say. Which begs another question, can there even be heresy in what he “does not” say?
To ponder that question let's see what Bell does "not say", that evangelicals hear so clearly. The fuzziness occurs, and the evangelical red flags start waving when he postulates, "...As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe and so forth...." (p155) The statement is complicated even more by an earlier reference to a difficult to explain verse often used to espouse Universalism where Jesus says, "...I have other sheep who are not of this sheep pen...". (John 10:16) Does Rob Bell say that a Muslim can go to heaven? Yes. Does Rob Bell say a Hindu can go to heaven? Yes. Buddhist, Baptists? Yes and Yes. Do we all agree with this? Well, while we may not want to - as it sits in this context - the answer is actually a resounding "Yes". Think about it. Evangelicals spend hundreds of billions of man hours and untold billions in resources evangelizing Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists and ... Baptists don't we? What we react to in his statement is something Bell does not say. We attach to his statement the idea that something “other” than Jesus will save. Does Bell say the doctrine of Islam will save? No. We suggest he does. Does Rob Bell say that Hinduism will get you to heaven? No. We suggest he does. Buddhism, Baptist Theology saves?...you get the point? Can evangelicals agree that "Jesus Saves"? Can we agree that God might use a person's search (in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baptist doctrine) to draw him to the person of Christ? Rob Bell says that Jesus is the only way to heaven. His answer to this is an unequivocal Yes. just like evangelicals. The way is as "...narrow asand as wide as the universe...". (p155) What Rob Bell does not narrowly define is "how" God might communicate the message of the gospel - and further he commits an even more egregious faux pas in evangelical terms by avoiding explanation in a way that is comfortable, and definitive to evangelicals. Leaving us to answer the question for ourselves.
And therein, lies the element of frustration that I feel upon finishing his treatise. He approaches the question, but backs away. He focuses on God's Love, but explains not Justice. To watch him explain it one get's the feeling that he actually enjoys the process of making us chase the truth. Is that what Christ did? As unsatisfying as it is, Bell holds both in the book and elsewhere that "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't...." (p115) Or that those are things that remain "firmly in the realm of speculation". I'm sorry but that leaves me feeling short changed. After all, I want an answer. I suspect that part of what is unsatisfying is that there are those questions, that I won't be able to answer on this side of God's grace. But then, didn't God tell us that, while His grace is sufficient for us, we won't see Love clearly for "...now, we see but a poor reflection...then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known..." In this, then I would suggest that it is a frustration that God has allowed us to experience and that in Him, perhaps, we can extend our own grace to Pastor Bell where we feel short-changed, to others where they seem to fall short or rest in their own journey and to ourselves where we know not our heart: accepting the grace that is His to offer and ours to receive. Can we be content in that?
First of all let me give my read on Bell's perspective. Bell often emphasizes what we can't know over what we can. Like the bible this is a book that you should not read or critique by the page. It should be consumed as a whole. And critiquing a book as a whole is a very difficult thing. The critics want to focus on his statements regarding hell to imply he believes there is no Hell as evangelicals believe Hell to be. He starts easy and simple, just like we like it: "Do I believe there is a literal Hell? Of course." (p71) Then he eases into a literal hell as seen in the "empty eyes" of a drug attic, the depression resulting from sexual abuse or the angst and confusion of an innocent young child whose father has committed suicide. In doing so, he seems to suggest that Hell is here on earth and it is comprised of choices that are made apart from God's best. His final definition of Hell is when "...we choose not to live in God's world, in God's way...". (p93) I have to say that biblically I would agree both temporily and eternally that hell is the absence of God and the increasing misery that comes with an increasing absence of all that is good. If Bell were saying that there is no Hell, as the evangelical community thinks of it, then I would say there is heresy. I am not convinced that this heretical claim is being made, at least not here. The critics seem to ignore the fact that not only does he never make the statement that there is no hell, quite the opposite he later states to the question of Hell's existence, "There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously." (p79) Additionally, he has clearly and unequivocally stated that he is not a Universalist. He also indicates both in the book and other places that it is not irrelevant how we respond to the person of Christ. In fact, he indicates that it is “terribly relevant”. These are all statements to which mainline evangelicalism would respond positively.
Now my read on the evangelical perspective. Where my evangelical friends will begin to “raise concern” with Bell, to put it gently - and approach “heresy” to state it boldly - is in what Bell is not willing to say. And this is where 2 items Bell brought together struck me as food for prayer and consideration. First, Bell brings the story in the old testament (Exodus 17) where the Israelites have been complaining, as they frequently did, to Moses as they head in their self-directed and meandering way, toward God's promised land. Their primary concern - at least this time, is about there being no drinking water. God tells Moses to take a handful of the leaders to Horeb and strike the Rock, where water will flow. Moses strikes the rock, water flows. Secondly, Bell notes that the apostle Paul then ties this episode referenced in First Corinthians 10 to the person of Jesus Christ. Paul ties Christ not as a "type" of Christ, but the very literal Rock by stating, "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them and that rock was Christ." Bell ties this new testament warning to the old testament story and notes that "...Christ was present in that moment....giving, quenching sustaining..." through a rock. Now I'm no theologian, but if the apostle Paul is suggesting that Christ was sustaining the Old Testament Israelites spiritual condition (even as they were under the law) through a rock that was Christ, then is it perhaps possible that same Christ can communicate a gospel message toward an unsaved spiritual condition through other means as well? Does not Romans 1 tell us his eternal power and divine nature can be seen in nature? Does the bible not say that if we seek, He will be found? (Deuteronomy 4:29, Matt 7:7) I see no heresy here in what Rob Bell says. The heresy lies in what we hear and how we attach to it something he does not say. Which begs another question, can there even be heresy in what he “does not” say?
To ponder that question let's see what Bell does "not say", that evangelicals hear so clearly. The fuzziness occurs, and the evangelical red flags start waving when he postulates, "...As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn't matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what you believe and so forth...." (p155) The statement is complicated even more by an earlier reference to a difficult to explain verse often used to espouse Universalism where Jesus says, "...I have other sheep who are not of this sheep pen...". (John 10:16) Does Rob Bell say that a Muslim can go to heaven? Yes. Does Rob Bell say a Hindu can go to heaven? Yes. Buddhist, Baptists? Yes and Yes. Do we all agree with this? Well, while we may not want to - as it sits in this context - the answer is actually a resounding "Yes". Think about it. Evangelicals spend hundreds of billions of man hours and untold billions in resources evangelizing Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists and ... Baptists don't we? What we react to in his statement is something Bell does not say. We attach to his statement the idea that something “other” than Jesus will save. Does Bell say the doctrine of Islam will save? No. We suggest he does. Does Rob Bell say that Hinduism will get you to heaven? No. We suggest he does. Buddhism, Baptist Theology saves?...you get the point? Can evangelicals agree that "Jesus Saves"? Can we agree that God might use a person's search (in Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baptist doctrine) to draw him to the person of Christ? Rob Bell says that Jesus is the only way to heaven. His answer to this is an unequivocal Yes. just like evangelicals. The way is as "...narrow as
And therein, lies the element of frustration that I feel upon finishing his treatise. He approaches the question, but backs away. He focuses on God's Love, but explains not Justice. To watch him explain it one get's the feeling that he actually enjoys the process of making us chase the truth. Is that what Christ did? As unsatisfying as it is, Bell holds both in the book and elsewhere that "Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't...." (p115) Or that those are things that remain "firmly in the realm of speculation". I'm sorry but that leaves me feeling short changed. After all, I want an answer. I suspect that part of what is unsatisfying is that there are those questions, that I won't be able to answer on this side of God's grace. But then, didn't God tell us that, while His grace is sufficient for us, we won't see Love clearly for "...now, we see but a poor reflection...then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known..." In this, then I would suggest that it is a frustration that God has allowed us to experience and that in Him, perhaps, we can extend our own grace to Pastor Bell where we feel short-changed, to others where they seem to fall short or rest in their own journey and to ourselves where we know not our heart: accepting the grace that is His to offer and ours to receive. Can we be content in that?
0 comments:
Post a Comment