Rob Bell rejoinder
Well, it seems to me like that quote prompted a lot of comments. I leave my blog alone for a few days and look what happens. I know that some of folks really identify with Bell and his feelings about postmodernism. I've listened to several of his sermons on the web and found myself enjoying his style. I'm not to sure that I know what to say about the book other than that I have mixed feelings. It didn't sit well with me that right off the bat he so closely associated himself with Marcus Borg, the Jesus Seminar scholar who denies the physical resurrection of Christ. That just left a really bad taste in my mouth as I continued through the book. I know that Bell really likes Tom Wright (who's famous for his defense of the resurrection) as well, but that just hit me wrong. By the way, he also encourages his readers to read John Piper.
Bell makes some really good points on several things. Bell notices that in the past Christians have often discouraged questioning and he feels that this process of questioning is good for the church if we're going to get a better understanding of our faith. Often in some Christian circles we set up a certain definition of orthodoxy that makes questioning off limits. In the church that I grew up in, I often felt like a heretic for just asking questions about other viewpoints on issues such as young-earth creationism, pre-trib dispensationalism, eternal security, speaking in tongues, etc. That's not helpful if we really want to understand Scripture.
However, we need to admit that not all doctrines are as important in the overall picture. I happen to think that the physical resurrection of Christ is crucial. The virgin birth is crucial. These are items that all three branches of "orthodox" Christianity has held as being vital to our faith. The difficulty is in deciding which issues are the most important for us to agree on, which issues should we use as a test of orthodoxy. I'm not completely sure what I think, but I know that some doctrines are definitely more important than others. I'll post some more on the book in the near future.
Bell makes some really good points on several things. Bell notices that in the past Christians have often discouraged questioning and he feels that this process of questioning is good for the church if we're going to get a better understanding of our faith. Often in some Christian circles we set up a certain definition of orthodoxy that makes questioning off limits. In the church that I grew up in, I often felt like a heretic for just asking questions about other viewpoints on issues such as young-earth creationism, pre-trib dispensationalism, eternal security, speaking in tongues, etc. That's not helpful if we really want to understand Scripture.
However, we need to admit that not all doctrines are as important in the overall picture. I happen to think that the physical resurrection of Christ is crucial. The virgin birth is crucial. These are items that all three branches of "orthodox" Christianity has held as being vital to our faith. The difficulty is in deciding which issues are the most important for us to agree on, which issues should we use as a test of orthodoxy. I'm not completely sure what I think, but I know that some doctrines are definitely more important than others. I'll post some more on the book in the near future.
posted by Daniel | 3:45 PM
23 Comments:
These are items that all three branches of "orthodox" Christianity
I just wanted to note that this is slightly question-begging. We should look for core tenets of Christianity and then evaluate said branches before we can use their agreement as any sort of reasoning to support a doctrine (physical resurrection, virgin birth, etc.)
While I of course agree that those two are crucial, it is important that we are careful with the logic we use to get there.
In Christ alone,
mike
I was just pointing out that Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox faith all share in common the doctrine of the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ.
I wasn't addressing how we know which branch is correct. That's more of an epistemological question.
God bless,
Daniel
I think you misunderstood me slightly (although it is probably my lack of clarity).
In any case, I've sense decided that it wasn't worth persuing. Sorry for the distraction.
In Christ alone,
mike
"which issues should we use as a test of orthodoxy"
not sure what this phrase means; will you please explain a bit?
as a premature response, the phrase makes me wonder, why is a test important? is the idea of a test to ascertain another's orthodoxy (correctness, perhaps?)?
and then, i think, uh-oh, i've seen this before: your lipstick is too red, your wife is too hot, your worship music is too fast...you cannot be Saved under these conditions.
so, ok, that was a bit defensive, yes? 8-(
and then, i think, uh-oh, i've seen this before: your lipstick is too red, your wife is too hot, your worship music is too fast...you cannot be Saved under these conditions.
Yep... that's practically the same as the two he listed - Physical Resurrection and virgin Birth.
And why is Orthodoxy important? Because our Theology is our description of God, our thoughts on the creator of the world. To have wrong thoughts is to defame the character of God. It is to worship a false God, an Idol of the mind. Furthermore, to allow others to teach heresy would result in many being led astray. Orthodoxy is of upmost importance.
In Christ alone,
mike
Could you please give us the context for that statement?
"Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people."
ok, i looked up the word 'orthodox.' it means "approved form of doctrine.' so when a church person says orthodoxy, they mean 'what our group says about God.' i can see some value in that, in that it helps a group define itself.
The difficulty is in deciding which issues are the most important for us to agree on, which issues should we use as a test of orthodoxy. I'm not completely sure what I think, but I know that some doctrines are definitely more important than others.
i think it gets even trickier when we try to figure out how to go about honoring/loving those with whom we do not agree.
as in, if you hold a matter of doctrine which you consider a deal breaker, do you (1) assume the role of judge and banish them to hell or (2)assume the role of fellow traveler and trust their sincere efforts?
in this world of fractured, splintered christianity we see—oh, wait: come to think of it, how we live out our answer to the question has a great deal to do with everything we are as a christian.
hmm...goes off mumbling...
Puritan,
Here's the context to that quote.
"Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God's."
Bell really doesn't explain what he means by the statement in his own writings. I guess that he might say that it means anything that you want it to mean(Just kidding).
It just frustrates me that he actually says what he believes or who believes Jesus is. He's like doctrinal jello. He's able to twist into any shape that's comfortable for the time. Maybe I'm being unfair about that. It's just hard to know what he actually thinks about these issues. I think that why's hard to define the emergent church. Nobody actually knows what they think.
Wilsford,
I think that we definitely need to love those that disagree with us. That's important. We should also discuss doctrinal issues with passion and kindness.
I agree that this has been missing in alot of the discussion of doctrine and they are certainly alot of doctrinal disagreements. However, we shouldn't conclude from this and doctrine isn't important. The word "doctrine" means teaching. Christianity has a set of teachings that make it distinctive from other religions. That doesn't mean that we should be jerks to those we don't agree with.
I think that Christians need to examine which teachings exactly make Christianity different from other faiths. What do you think?
I think the Nicene Creed is a good standard for 'the essentials' of the Christian faith. I'd say anything beyond that is okay to wonder/question about.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Ahh looks like I was prety close with the context.
I think that Christians need to examine which teachings exactly make Christianity different from other faiths. What do you think?
i think that most of the time we call ourselves christians, and then tell other people who call themselves christians that they are hell-bound because only we have THE Truth
and that the real losers in that argument are the on-lookers who might have embraced God had only we put aside our convictions long enough to let the real God be seen.
i think that before we set out to 'correct' another person, to set them straight on God, that we are by definition in a high-risk environment which we should not enter without much examination of our own priorities and much prayer to God for his loving guidance.
Wilsford,
I'm just curious. Do you consider yourself to be a Christian? If so, why?
Do you believe that we can know the truth in the first place?
I'm just trying to find common ground.
Stacy,
I've learned a lot from John Piper. I think that he's a wonderful teacher, but I don't accept everything that the man has to say. I think that he is a brilliant thinker and a passionate spokesman for Christ.
However, I don't agree with him on several important issues including the very nature of salvation.
The same thing is true with Rob Bell. I think that we can learn a lot from him, but that doesn't mean that we should take everything that the man says as truth. In fact, he would even say that.
Stacy,
Yeah, that makes great sense. My own beliefs have changed and developed a lot in the last several years. I've questioned things that I would have never dreamed that I would have questioned. I think that we are on the same page more than you might think.
By the way, we don't know other folks' motives for commenting so shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just seeking to know God as well. Only God knows the heart.
Marcus Borg's theology is pretty unorthodox. I don't know if you're familiar with the guy, but he rejects the bodily resurrection of Christ. He's a part of the Jesus Seminar. It's his work that fuels Da Vinci code folks.
The resurrection is definitely a "test of orthodoxy" issue for me. I assume that the same is true with you.
Look at what Paul says in 1 Tim. 1:18-20. "Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."
That's not exactly a nice thing to say but Paul says it about these folks who have shipwrecked the faith. Personally I think that if he were around today, he would have similiar things to say about Marcus Borg and Jesus Seminar folks.
Now to be fair to Rob Bell, I haven't come across anything in the Velvet Elvis where he calls Marcus Borg "a mentor." Maybe that's in another one of his writings. I'm just not sure what Bell completely thinks about Borg, but the fact that he takes a couple of quotes from Borg's book made me nervous.
Do you believe that we can know the truth in the first place?
no, i do not think we can know The Truth. We can grasp at bits of it, and some of it i do believe we 'know' in our hearts. but i do not think that we can know The Truth.
as far as whether i consider myself a christian or not...i guess i can understand why you might ask, but am not sure that a 'yes' answer would establish common ground.
our common ground at this point is the conversation. that is enough for me for now.
however, if that makes you uncomfortable, let me know and i will withdraw. while i don't mind making people uncomfortable, i genuinely don't want to shake another's faith. (challenge, sure. disrupt, no)
Wilsford,
Don't worry. You're not making me uncomfortable. I enjoy hearing your thoughts. I don't want to shake your faith either.
But here's my question. What is your faith? What do you believe about Jesus? Who is he? Does it matter what our answers are?
I agree that we can't ever have a complete knowledge of the truth. We are finite beings, limited in our perspectives and by our sin. We are biased and we can't examine things completely objectively.
That's why we need revelation. We need to hear from God. We need His help to discern the Truth. And I believe that God has given us supernatural help to know God's truth.
Of course, we don't ever have all of the picture, but God-willing we are moving towards it.
What is your faith? i am not
sure what my faith is. i am hanging on to belief in the triune God and running as fast as i can from the trappings humans have strung around God—all the while trying to come to terms with this human-made mess we call the bride of Christ. and yes, that does feel contradictory. wrestling with finding God in that.
Does it matter what our answers are? if by "our" you mean humankind in general, i think that our answers do not matter as much as we think they do.
if by "our" you mean the answers of a self-identified group of christians such as a congregation or denomination (or non-denomination! as the case may be) then i think the answers matter very little, because in most cases those answers serve more to create human identity than God-identity.
Stacy, i agree with the continual growing relationship and that we can know more of The Truth (call it wisdom or spiritual maturity) but the more of The Truth we know, i am betting the less willing we are to hammer others with it and the more willing we are to abide in it and let it shine through us, egos aside.
i appreciate the opportunity to consider these issues aloud.
p.s. yes, i still consider myself a christian, though an at-risk christian. am i ready to throw God away for a more loving, tolerant culture? tempting. am i ready to throw God away and risk losing all His love? no, so i keep hanging in there.
Wilsford:
I have been enjoying your conversation here with daniel. I think the best of what Daniel pointed out was this:
That's why we need revelation. We need to hear from God. We need His help to discern the Truth. And I believe that God has given us supernatural help to know God's truth.
Can you please answer if you have ever had Christ revealed to you from heaven?
Can you please answer if you have ever had Christ revealed to you from heaven?
if i cannot give an unequivocal, resounding YES, is the answer no?
on the other hand, i 'feel' (a no-no word in many christian circles, i realize) that God/Christ/Jesus/the Holy Spirit reveals himself in many ways throughout each day.
i 'feel' God revealing himself in the incredible, awesome wonder of our physical world, in the instant peace i am blessed with when i ask for it, in the smile of another person, in kind words and deeds that spring from me unexpectedly (where in the world did that come from?) and from others.
i feel God at times during a worship service, during moments of contemplative prayer (not every moment, just now and then) and during occasional insights that come to me while meditating on or reading something from the bible.
i feel God in the ways my life has unfolded, throughout the incredible blessings, and despite some incredible sadness and pain.
i feel God in that i cannot deny His being. there was a time when i appreciated logical arguments for a historical Jesus, but now i do not, because i have found that no matter how well someone understands his or her group's doctrine, no matter how high a level of education, no matter how many hours spent reading the bible—none of that is what God is, and none of that show's Christ in the speaker.
apologies for the long post.
i am glad i put that all down. it serves as a good reminder to me of how i feel God in my life, which at times, i forget.
puritan, i responded you on my blog
Post a Comment
<< Home