Rational despotism—that is, selective despotism—is always a curse to mankind, because with that you have the ordinary man misunderstood and misgoverned by some prig who has no brotherly respect for him at all. But irrational despotism is always democratic, because it is the ordinary man enthroned.
G.K. Chesterton, Heretics
As American Christians, we celebrate the idea that “all men are created equal.” This statement from our Declaration of Independence is grounded in the biblical teaching that every person in the world has been formed in the image of God and therefore has intrinsic worth. It’s a beautiful idea.
Subtly however this equality of persons shifts into an equality of ideas. Just as every person is equally valued, so every idea is equally valid. Applied to faith, this means that in a world where different people have different religious views, all such views should be treated as fundamentally equal.
In this system of thinking, faith is a matter of taste, not of truth. The cardinal sin, therefore, is to claim that one person’s belief is true and another person’s belief is false. The honorable route is to rest quietly in what you believe and resist the urge to share your beliefs with someone else.
– David Platt, Radical. Chapter 7.
I received my copy of the book Love Wins by Rob Bell today. Right now the kids are napping so I had to take a break from the home projects I was working on to give them some peace and quiet. Here’s my reaction to the preface:
My reaction so far is not positive.
Bell explains why he wrote the book – for those who don’t approve of the gospel being taught in the evangelical church[1]. Is it a problem with the message that people see it as foolishness? The Bible says that’s going to be people’s reaction to it[2], and Paul lived this out, being repeatedly beaten, threatened, and jailed by unbelievers in various cities where he shared the gospel – clearly if it was worth beating up the messenger, the people didn’t consider it “good” news[3]. Should Paul have changed the message to make the good news seem “good” in their eyes?
Bell explains that he those on his side (those who disapprove of the gospel taught by the church) have become aware of the truth that Jesus’ story has been hijacked. If you teach what Bell disagrees with, you’re a spiritual terrorist, hijacking the gospel. Here on the first page of text Bell sets the tone to be clearly Us – the enlightened disapprovers of the church vs. Them – the hijackers.
Scripture:
Bell talks about scripture in three different terms: “sacred text,” “stories” and “ongoing discussion.” Neither of these terms are exclusively applied to the Christian cannon of scripture, however. Anyone can tell stories, anyone can discuss things. There’s no indication that scripture is any different from anyone telling a story or having a discussion today.
Sacred Text:
Rob specifically addresses “the sacred text” once in the intro:
The ancient sages said the words of the sacred text were black letters on a white page – there’s all that white space, waiting to be filled with our responses and discussions and debates and opinions and longings and desires and wisdom and insights.
I can’t figure out who ever said this. Clearly by calling these people “sages,” Bell thinks they carry authority in the discussion. But who are they? It was at this point that I realized there’s no footnotes. No endnotes. Bell doesn’t cite a single source. Who said this? What makes them a sage? Why are they worth listening to? Google was no help. The closest I got was a quote by the anti-religious Proust who wasn’t writing about sacred text.
What Bell is promoting is the idea of eisigesis – pushing our own ideas and opinions into a text, and considering that to be what the text really means. This is the opposite of exegesis, a process in which we seek to discover what the text means in itself, and try to hold back our own opinions and pre-conceived theology. I value exegesis, and believe that my ideas should change in response to the text, rather than changing what the text means by filling in the white space and amending scripture to mean whatever I want it to.
I’m troubled by this perspective from a pastor who in the intro to his book strips scripture of it’s authority, placing the authority instead in his own opinions that he is free to force onto texts – and commanded to by anonymous sages that somehow escaped being filed by Google.
Stories:
Bell says Jesus isn’t interested in telling the stories that he disapproves of, and they have “nothing to do with what he came to do.” Clearly, Jesus must have never told those stories. Right? On page 1, I don’t know what stories he’s referring to, but it’s clear that Jesus is not interested in the stuff being said by the hijackers. I’m troubled by the emphasis on story – stories are told as a way to communicate truth. Truth is best communicated by the story. But the emphasis is not on the story itself, but on the truth it communicates. If something is just a story, then we should not expect any truth behind it. That idea strips the authority of the truth that good stories communicate.
Bell says it’s time to reclaim the lost plot about what Jesus came to do. If the plot was lost and must be reclaimed, I’m relying on Bell to show how Jesus, the disciples, and the early church showed the true plot, and that all of these groups never told the stories that he disapproves of in the church today. I’m curious to see where he believes the gospel of the church today came from.
Ongoing Discussion:
Is scripture divine? Well, kind of. Discussing important stuff is divine.
What qualifies as “important”? Who decides? Is all discussion equally divine? Are all words of everyone divine?
This all brings up another question: If all of the discussion is divine, is every participant equally authoritative?
No. Not all voices are equal.
So far, this is the one question Bell answers. Not everyone is on equal footing in the discussion, and you may not be welcome here.
Bell takes a very strong stand on who can and who cannot participate in worthwhile discussion. He expands the Us vs. Them attitude from page 1, that the spiritual terrorist hijackers are misguided, toxic, and subversive to Jesus’ message. Bell, on the other hand has the truth of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy.
Not a charged atmosphere at all – as we enter this book, if you agree with Bell you’re in favor of love, peace, forgiveness and joy. If you disagree, you’re a misguided toxic terrorist hijacker subverting Jesus.
Which side do you choose?
A few differences between Bell’s book (so far) and my reaction:
Footnotes
[1] – I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to church, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I would never be a part of that.” viii
[2] “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1:18. This passage is also very clear that there is a difference between those who are perishing (which seems to mean in the state of perishing but the perishing is ongoing and not yet in it’s fullness) contrasted with those who are being saved (in the state of being saved, but the saving is ongoing and not yet in it’s fullness)
[3] 1 Corinthians 11:25 “Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep.”
Rob Bell, pastor, author, and speaker in the popular Nooma video series, has just published a book called “Love Wins.” The book is a challenge to Christians to re-think our views of hell, heaven, and salvation.
I haven’t read the book, and I’ve only watched some of this video interview so far – what Bell is communicating, and how he’s communicating it was driving me crazy and I had to take a break. I’m not (as of yet) as troubled by the view of hell – there have historically been various takes on the concept. I’m troubled by what is communicated by at least the first parts of the interview. From my first impressions, which may be far from accurate:
I’m curious about Bells views on canon – what makes a writing part of the Bible? Is the canon open, still being added to today? Is Bell’s book as authoritative as the Bible? is the Bible authoritative, or just some other voices about stuff that “matters”?
That would help with everything – if scripture isn’t inherently any more authoritative than any other voice, then we can disregard scriptural teachings as just suggestions that we can pick and choose from as we build our part of the discussion.
The idea communicated to me so far that we all experience “hell” every day on earth is packed so full of presuppositions – it presumes that “hell” is simply synonymous for “thinks I don’t like” or “things I think are awful.”
Regardless of how we’ve now redefined “hell,” the statement means that God has sentenced his people to live in hell as much – or more than those rebelling against Him. This is all in order to make God more like what we consider “love” to mean in “God is love.”
If this hell (per Bell’s view) is the best heaven we ever get, then to follow Jesus’ teaching is to forbid marrying. It also means there is no hope for resurrection or future life. No wedding feast. No “then we shall see face to face.” This all, of course, would be to contradict other very clear teachings in the Bible.
But then again, if the scripture is simply some old fashioned blokes with childish cartoony ideas that we’ve outgrown, then disobeying what Jesus and his apostles taught isn’t a big deal, and we are free to do and believe as we see right in our own eyes. (This is what the people of Noah’ time were exterminated for by God in the flood, but again it’s not relevant if the Bible is no more relevant than anything else.)
I’m not condemning Bell or anyone else. As I stated, this is just my first impression and may well be wrong. I know people who have condemned Bell unjustly for some time. I think people ought to have a chance to correct themselves and clarify miscommunication. I think we ought to be gracious with each other, and point out error in order that correction may take place rather than just going around condemning people we dislike, misunderstand, or disagree with.
It may be that I have a problem with how he communicates, and he’s not actually overwriting the Bible with his idea of what “God is love” means (and I wonder what it might mean when separated from the biblical context) – it may be that he’s not exalting himself (and you and me) to be on par with scripture (which is self-described as God-breathed).
I’m generally concerned with what the foundational principles and logic are, and what the logical end is when those ideas are carried out. I’d like to see what Bells ideas are, and what they open his followers up to. I appreciate Bell’s ability to make people re-think, re-consider, challenge presuppositions. When this is done however, the question must be asked: what direction are we heading in now, and under the same re-consideration, is it better or worse than what was previously believed?
At this point I’m hesitant to give Rob Bell money by buying this book, but it’s likely not available cheap and used yet – any suggestions?
…
t
here are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be concede to t
he mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one. That is why, in spite of a hundred disadvantages, the world will always return to monogamy.
– G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday.
Yesterday I wrote about how Christmas being about Christ would be better communicated by how Christians live that people attaching the abbreviated name “Xmas.”
Along the same lines is the debate about the governmental definition of “marriage.” There’s different cultural forces in the debate about that word. Christians are told that everyone is offended by them saying the name of the Federal Holiday “Christmas” so they must not say it. You must not ask people to be tolerant of your perspective. With marriage, there is a very purposeful effort to create a new definition, which would be legally forced on everyone to accept. One point being: you will not be tolerated for your beliefs (calling Christmas “Christmas”), but you will be legally required not to tolerate but to accept and have your children taught someone else’s beliefs (changing the millennials-old religious concept of “marriage.”)
This isn’t the first time in American history that marriage has come under attack. Possibly a greater attack was when divorce was made legally quick and easy. Today Christian marriage doesn’t stand out in American culture from non-Christian marriage. Christians, including multiple pastors by whom I’ve been taught, have divorced. We’ve caved. We’ve gone the convenient route of compromising our covenants. We’ve changed beliefs about marriage because it became legally and socially acceptable to break our bonds of covenant, which are supposed to symbolize the commitment of God to his people. We aren’t acting like Hosea, we’re acting like Hosea’s wife.
I’ve often thought that the case for Christian marriage wouldn’t be a verbal sparring or a federal constitutional amendment. (My libertarian side doesn’t think the federal government should get into this debate, but leave it up to the states. Neither side of the argument agrees with me as everyone would seemingly rather force their ideas on everyone rather than allow choice.) I’ve thought the stronger case would be for there to be a revolution regarding the theology of marriage among Christians.
G. K. Chesterton makes a surprisingly logical and secular case for Christian marriage in Orthodoxy. It’s part of a great chapter by a great book by perhaps my new favorite author – but I’ll write more on Chesterton and this book later. Here Chesterton is writing about his disagreement with his peers that believe a perfect utopia would be the dissolution of all personal bonds. He sees that as a dystopia. It seems that Chesterton’s comments lean toward a perspective that argues for protection of the marriage concept as something that is for the good of society.
What is your perspective? Here’s Chesterton:
I could never conceive or tolerate any Utopia which did not leave to me the liberty for which I chiefly care, the liberty to bind myself. Complete anarchy would not merely make it impossible to have any discipline or fidelity; it would also make it impossible to have any fun. To take an obvious instance, it would not be worth while to bet if a bet were not binding. The dissolution of all contracts would not only ruin morality but spoil sport. Now betting and such sports are only the stunted and twisted shapes of the original instinct of man for adventure and romance, of which much has been said in these pages. And the perils, rewards, punishments, and fulfilments of an adventure must be real, or the adventure is only a shifting and heartless nightmare. If I bet I must be made to pay, or there is no poetry in betting. If I challenge I must be made to fight, or there is no poetry in challenging. If I vow to be faithful I must be cursed when I am unfaithful, or there is no fun in vowing.
You could not even make a fairy tale from the experiences of a man who, when he was swallowed by a whale, might find himself at the top of the Eiffel Tower, or when he was turned into a frog might begin to behave like a flamingo. For the purpose even of the wildest romance results must be real; results must be irrevocable. Christian marriage is the great example of a real and irrevocable result; and that is why it is the chief subject and centre of all our romantic writing.
And this is my last instance of the things that I should ask, and ask imperatively, of any social paradise; I should ask to be kept to my bargain, to have my oaths and engagements taken seriously; I should ask Utopia to avenge my honour on myself.
My third goal for this Jon-ese year is to finish every book I stared (with the intention of finishing).
City of God by Saint Augustine(33/1091)
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (260/1084)
The Gunslinger (The Dark Tower, Book 1) by Stephen King (10/300)
Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home by Richard Foster (20/256)
The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (118/432)
An Unstoppable Force: Daring to Become the Church God Had in Mind by Erwin McManus (174/224)
The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton (I know I read most of this, but it’s been a long time, I’ll have to start over.)–
After I made this goal, My Wife reminded me that I had agree to read the first book of two series. In each I read the first chapter. Two late additions to this list:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (18/309)
Twilight (28/498)I’ve re-started reading The City of God by Augustine.
Augustine wrote to defend “the city of God,” which ultimately exists “in the security of its everlasting seat,” but also exists in some ways in “this world of time1.” This is Augustine’s expression of the already/not-yet idea of the Kingdom – it is already among us in some ways but not yet in others for which we wait expectantly.
Part of Augustine’s personal story as he wrote in his Confessions, was his ability to argue and debate and the pride he experienced as a young man at university then as a professor. He was uniquely equipped to we write to convince those who are proudly attacking Christianity and blaming it for the fall of the Roman empire to the barbarians. He also understood
“how great is the effort needed to convince the proud of the power and excellence of humility, an excellence which makes it soar above all the summits of this world, which sway in their temporal instability, overtopping them all with an eminence not arrogated by human pride but granted by divine grace.”
In a parallel contrast to the eternal (yet present in time) city of God vs. the temporary earthly cities of men, Augustine’s arguments are here framed as soaring above the temporal world of the prideful arguments of his opponents.
Crazy Love by Francis Chan
I’ve started Crazy Love by Francis Chan that was given to me by The Pastor.
Chan has a website with videos to accompany the reading of his book. In fact, the book says to stop reading at parts until you’ve watched the video for that chapter.
The book is growing on me the more I read – I’m only in chapter 2 so far. Here’s a few thoughts so far.
From Chapter 1:
From Chapter 2:
Worry implies that we don’t quite trust that God is big enough, powerful enough, or loving enough to take care of what’s happening in our lives.
Stress says that the things we are involved in are important enough to merit our impatience, our lack of grace toward others, or our tight grip of control.
Basically, these two behaviors communicate that it’s okay to sin and not trust God because the stuff in my life is somehow exceptional. Both worry and stress reek of arrogance.
Crazy Love by Francis Chan. Page 42
