What Comes First? Doctrine or Life? (A response to "Beyond Foundationalism" and "Velvet Elvis")

This perpetual "chicken or the egg" question which has been presented to me many times in my educational and personal life over these last years.
Growing up, I had always assumed that doctrine came before life. It was precisely this belief that lead me to Bible school, where I hoped to hear the deep things of God expounded to me, in order that I could spend a lifetime expounding them to others, to be of maximum assistance to my fellow humans. It was at seminary, however, that I first encountered the rival position.
In Grenze and Franke's book "Beyond Foundationalism," they argue that the concept of finding truth in Scriptures, then building one truth after another upon these Scriptures (or, "Foundationalism") is too outdated, "too modern," and too divisive. They prefer to see theologians as servants of the church - following after her. As she experiences God, the theologians write theology to express this experience. This is basically the same perspective which was presented by Classic Liberalism, which was fond of saying "beware of doctrine!" and urging people to put their experiences, not their ideas of God, as foremost in their spiritual lives. Most recently, Rob Bell has said that the idea that Scriptures can actually speak for themselves, (that is, the idea that the Bible has a trans-cultural message, which can be read in-spite of any biases of the reader) is a toxic, dangerous idea. Later he says that it makes him want to vomit. For him, doctrines help us live and help us love - but the doctrines themselves are not the point (the living and loving is), and they can be changed for other doctrines if we so choose.
With all this preamble, I hope that you see clearly that although you may have thought it only common sense that doctrines precede life, there are many who are teaching exactly the opposite. In fact, there are exceedingly strong winds - both in the academy and Christian-pop-culture which would push the next generation into believing this very thing.
In this post, I hope to briefly, concisely and firmly prove that to be a Christian is to put doctrine before life.
IDEAS ARE IMPORTANT
Paired with the idea that "life proceeds doctrine" is the similar thought that "doctrine is unimportant." But on what ground can this idea be defended? Doctrines are beliefs, and beliefs are the most important things which exist in the life of a human. Beliefs drive some people to success and other to failure. Beliefs make and ruin marriages. Beliefs push people to climb mountains, and lower them to wallow in drunken stupors.
But doctrines are not just any beliefs - they are beliefs about God, about eternity, about the meaning of life. In short, doctrines are beliefs about the most important things in the world. It was because of doctrine that the armies of Hitler, of Stalin, and of the Allies marched. It was because of doctrine that Muslims flew their planes into the World Trade Center, and because of doctrine that the Christian and post-Christian nations fought back.
In fact, if one was perceptive they would see that only a few of the major wars of the last century have been wars over bare-faced greed and hatred: almost all of them have been wars of doctrine. And this with good reason! For the doctrines of one people raised them to great humanitarian heights - while the doctrines of others caused them to devalue human life, to use and abuse people, to imprison and exterminate, to commit genocide and crimes against humanity.
Hitler was a mighty military genius: but without his propaganda - that is, without his ability to convert people to his way of thinking, to his doctrine - he would have been powerless.
How can anyone say that doctrines are unimportant? Anyone with sense could see that doctrines are the rudders which steers the mighty ships of our turbulent earth.
PLACING EXPERIENCE BEFORE DOCTRINE IS KNOWN COMMONLY AS 'FLYING BY THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS'
We know people who act without first thinking. In common language we say they, "live by the seat of their pants." The Bible calls these people fools. A wise man looks ahead and avoids the pit: the fool stumbles right into it.
No one values this. No one with any sense lives like this: not in marriage, not in finances, not in careers, not in any aspect of life, in fact, except in this one thing, in religion. But if religion is the most important aspect of life - that is, it is that one aspect of belief, from which all other beliefs flow - then why are people cavalier about this aspect of their belief? Should religion not be themost important, and therefore the most studied, most contemplated, most thoroughly accurate portion of our belief system?
PARENTS PUT RIGHT THOUGHT BEFORE LIFE EXPERIENCE
Let us put the large words aside - or, rather, boil them down to more common and manageable words. By "doctrines," we mean things that Christians think about God and life. By experience, we mean daily life. Now tell me - which do you expect to come first for your children? Do you tell your two-three-and-twelve year-olds, "go, my children - experience the world! Learn for yourselves what is right and wrong!" Of course not. That is just silly. As parents, we have a wealth of information to pass on to our children. Our intention is not (usually/hopefully) to control them or stifle their growth. Rather, we hope to set them on a firm foundation of learning and of sound living. Before our children are in their teens, we expect them to be acquainted with literally millenia of accumulated human knowledge and lessons. We also expect them to have a strong sense of morality - treating others with fairness and compassion. In short, we teach our  children what/how to think in orderthat they may have long, happy and prosperous lives. We do not expect them to experience the world with an empty head, then come back to us and tell uswhat to think about it. Of course, this does happen - and broken-hearted parents beat on the doors of heaven, crying out for their children to be quickly delivered from the arrogant self-sufficiency of adolescence.
There is a critical phase of development when parents (ideally) begin to back off, to let their children learn for themselves. However, this cautious freedom is really just another teaching method. The hope is that children given guidance from a distance will be able to learn for themselves the lessons which the parents have tried to instill in them from childhood.
A few very foolish parents attempt to give their children absolute freedom from diapers to graduation. The result is almost universally one of absolute disaster.
But if we cannot even raise our children without first giving them thoughts to build their lives on, how can pastors, churches, and even theologians say that the thoughts of people on this topic of religion are unimportant?
A STRANGE DIVISION BETWEEN SPIRITUAL AND EARTHLY MATTERS
Perhaps it could be said that these are all secular matters. On finances, on career and life planning and such things, it is essential to have a good education. However, in spiritual matters it is the questioning and the journeying which are far more important than the destination.
In reply to this we must ask two questions: first, is God real, or only a figment of our imagination? Secondly, we must ask whether right knowledge is necessary to relationship.
Many people - even many Christian people - believe that religion is a deeply private affair. And in certain ways it most certainly is. Nobody should tell anybody else what they must believe about God. However, when we make the statement that "everybody's beliefs about God are valid," we are making a very definite theological statement. We are, in fact, denying the real existence of God: for the only way that mutually contradicting statements can both be "equally" valid is for neither of them to be valid.
EVERY PERSON HAS CERTAIN FACTS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THEM
Let us imagine three girls - all bereaved of their father in early childhood. Naturally, each of the girls has a "relationship" with her father in her memories of him. And just as naturally, the father of the imagination is slightly different for each girl. The oldest remembers her father as a wise and quiet man - slow of speech, but full of wisdom and kindness. The middle child remembers him on his knees giving her "horsie-rides" and tickling her with great affection. The youngest, however (who in reality has no memories whatsoever) has invented a father by gluing together the TV characters of Mr. Christie, Santa Clause and Willy Wanka. The other sisters regard her mythological conceptions of father with quiet and respectful amusement. Each one is welcome to her own opinion - and the very young are welcome even to deceive themselves. However, at some point if the youngest will not grow out of her delusion, an older sister is sure to set her straight: "Look, sister, dad was not magical. He did not wear a top hat. He did not have a snowy white beard. He did not go to the land of leprochans and umpa-lumpas. Dad was a real person. And these stories you are making up are totally fictional. Your fantasies do not match up with the actual reality which I remember. Please - if you want to hold on to these delusions, keep them to yourself. They are an insult to me, because you make it sound like dad did not really exist, was not a real person. And he was. I remember him!"
Surely God shows a different aspect of Himself to each person. However, if we begin to say that wildly contradicting ideas about God's nature and character (for example, "He is Trinity" versus "He is not Trinity) are equally valid, we have just made the statement that God is not real, except in the human imagination. At this point, "God" differs nothing from the tooth-fairy, the imaginary friend, or Santa Clause.
FACTS ABOUT PEOPLE ARE ESSENTIAL TO RELATIONSHIPS
Further, it is my firm belief that beliefs about a person are foundational to a relationship of any sort. Let us use the internet phenomenon of a chat room as one bare example. Let's say we are in an open chat room - discussing, for example, global warming. A user by the name of Gl831 has said some interesting things, and so you want to talk to them directly - perhaps even become (as scary as this is!) their friend. What is the first thing you would likely ask them? "Hello, Gl831 - just curious, what is your a/s/l?" As we techies know, that stands for "age, sex, location" - the bare minimum of information which you can know about a person, to have an online conversation/relationship. If you don't know this, or if the person lies to you, a real deep relationship is impossible. If you do not know whether Gl831 is, for example, 38/m/United States or 12/f/Japan, you will have no idea how to visualize the person, how to respond, how to term your questions, where they are coming from, or, in short, who they are. They will be nothing but a phantom to you.
And if we are unclear about our beliefs about God, He is only a phantom to us: no relationship is possible. If we do not know whether "God" is Zeus or Gaia, whether He is Allah or Buddha, whether He is Yahweh or "the force," whether He is, kind or mean, all-knowing or limited, all-powerful or impotent, personal or impersonal, how could we begin to have a relationship with Him? If we are keeping our minds "open" to all possibilities, we are really admitting we have landed on none, and thus are very far from even attempting a relationship.
Let us push it further. Let's go ask that couple - the one over there, walking on the beach with stars in their eyes - whether they have beliefs about one another, or are motivated by pure sentimentality? On the surface, yes, the two are simply madly, illogically in love. But let us push deeper. "Maam, do you believe that this man is a cruel person?" "No! Of course not!" "Do you believe he will be a good father?" "I certainly do!" "Do you think he will abuse your children?" "Certainly not! Why - do you know something I don't know?" See now how this relationship is actually built on real beliefs. Only a little digging and experimentation shows how very weak those foundation-stones are in this case, for in reality most of the woman's beliefs about the man (and vice-versa) are founded only in a projection of desire: however, without concrete beliefs, a relationship is impossible. Of course, a person is more than a list of facts (e.g. 5'3", male, Canadian, kind, good at math, Christian, good provider, virgin, well groomed, etc.) but they are never less than these facts. These facts provide the bedrock of a relationship: alter or move the important "rocks," and the relationship shatters.
CONCLUSION
So it is with a relationship with the Living God. He is real. As such, He has real facts - or, attributes - which we can learn about. He has a real history, and He really spent time in the flesh, on this earth as recorded in the Bible. In reading, studying and cross-referencing the Bible, we can arrive are real "doctrines," or "beliefs" about God. Our relationship to God is built upon these beliefs. Our life, in turn, is built upon our relationship (or lack thereof) with God.
Therefore, Christian doctrines do not flow from experience, but experience flows from doctrines. There is likely no more important task for each individual Christian than finding out exactly what it is that God has revealed of Himself in Scriptures, and seeing how that intersects with their own lives.
By contrast, the idea of theology or doctrines coming from experience is at best agnosticism and at worst an anti-God religion, which makes humanity the inventors of "God," who is merely a figment of each individual's private imagination.
The only religion where doctrines flow from life would be Hinduism, or various eastern spin-off religions from Hinduism. In this religion, each individual is the center of their own universe: they, themselves are or at least contain god. Therefore, whatever conception they hold of God is valid for them - as god, they have the power to create spiritual realities for one's self. For Christians, however, who believe in a real personal God who is outside of us, the notion of "creating doctrine" is nonsense or (to put it into religious terminology) blasphemy.
I would like to close with one illustration. In the introduction of an episode of "the white-horse inn podcast," one of the hosts told a story about a very liberal university professor, who was trying to convince the class that all religions are basically the same thing. The man's aims were supposedly good - he was trying to achieve world peace by helping all religious people realize that they are all part of one big happy family. "The only uniting which he accomplished," said the host, "was to motivate myself [a Christian] and my Jewish and Muslim friend to meet in a pub later that night and rage about how mad we were at him!"
And why wouldn't they be mad? For if all religions are the same, they are all equally false. Wasn't that teacher basically saying that all religions basically are myths which help us be good people? But to believe this would not be to be a "better" Muslim, Jew or Christian, but to cease to be a person of faith, and become an agnostic or humanist.
People who place life before doctrine should not be surprised at the angry back-lash from people of real faith: for there is no insult more deep and profound than to say that the beliefs which one has founded their entire life upon, has sacrificed for, has fought for, are mere fantasy.

How Could a Loving God also be Jealous?

The better question to ask is, "How could a loving God not be jealous?" It is the nature of love to be committed and faithful to its object. Love covenants - not under compulsion, but freely, spontaneously and lavishly. I have never yet see a bride resisting and crying out as she walks down the aisle. But is there any contract more binding, more absolute, more final than marriage? She is covenanting not only all of her finances and assets, but her body, her soul and the souls and bodies of her children to this man - and he to her. They covenant not until such and such a date, but with the ominous finality of, "'till death do us part."
But they weep not - or, if they weep, they weep for joy and not for sorrow - for who would have it any other way? What greater joy is there than to love, and also to be loved? And what true love is there which does not instantly and spontaneously long to spin for itself that cocoon of fidelity, built on bars of eternality, sealed with the iron chains of covenant?
Lovers do this joyously, gladly, exuberantly, foolishly. No one forces them: indeed, no one could stop them!
Why? Because they are in love.
But how can you say that love is not jealous? For what wife would tolerate a mistress? What husband would tolerate even a flirtatious smile to another man? How could a woman tolerate even a wandering eye of her husband? And who is not at times jealous of the very minds of their beloved?
"For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;Its flashes are flashes of fire,The very flame of the LORD." (Song of Solomon 8:6).
I have a test for you. Pick the one whom you love the most. Think about the unspoken (or spoken) covenant which is between you. What is it that you have promised to do freely, joyfully and faithfully for your beloved? Think carefully about all of the cords of love binding your hearts together in mutuality, harmony and joy. Think of your dreams together. Think of your courtship. Think of all the tenderest moments which have been between you.
Now imagine your beloved turning, pulling, snapping, and indifferentlypulling apart every covenant he has ever made with you, and rebinding his heart to another.
My belief is this: your anger at your betrayal will be directly proportionate to the love at your covenanting.
For love is inherently jealous.

Does God have the right to judge?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA],
In this video, Todd Friel attempts to use his standard Ray Comfort-evangelism logic-train on Christopher Hitchens. (For those unaware, it is supposed to goes like this: 1) Do you think you are a sinner? "No" 2) Would you like to know what God thinks sins are? "Sure" 3) He says lying is bad. Have you ever lied? "Yes." He says lust is bad, have you done that? "Yes" (etc.) 4) Well then, according to God's standards, do you think you are a sinner? "Yes." 5) Okay then. Based on what you just said, if you died right now, do you think God would judge you as worthy of heaven or hell? "Hell." 6) Would you like to know about how God made a way for you to receive mercy, and avoid this terrible judgment? "Sure...") On Todd's web-site, he has many examples of himself using this methodology to evangelize, with varying results.
However, it did not work at all with Hitchens. It all seems to have gone south because Friel could not offer a good answer to Hitchen's first and great objection, namely, "What right has God got to judge the human race?" Because Friel's whole train of logic as based on God as judge, the rest of the conversation didn't really make sense and one can understand - although not completely endorse - Hitchen's choice to simply start hurling obscenities at the end of it.
The question "Does God have a right to judge" is a central and important one. It is very clear that Hitchens believes that nobody has a right to judge him. But is this really consistent with his own reasoning?
To summarize, Hitchens feels that several of the commandments are insultingly obvious (e.g. don't lie, steal, murder). He then rejects several of the commandments (e.g. worship the Lord only, do not covet), and he notes with disapproval that several very important commandments (e.g. love your children) are not on this list at all.
Please take careful note: he does not say, "I believe it would be convenient if these changes were made to the Ten Commandments." Rather, he says, "These changes should be made." He states that it is unethical and downright wrongthat these additions and subtractions are not made. Now, what is Hitchens implying here? Statements of desire denote a personal preference: statements of necessity, or moral obligation denote some higher power to which Hitchens is appealing.
We say that one mathematical equation is wrong, another right, and (possibly) a third is close but slightly off. In so saying, we are implying that there is some absolute standard of "mathematical correctness" out there.
And I believe that Hitchens believes that there is such a moral standard. How could Hitchen's statement that some of the commandments are wrong, some are good, and some are insultingly obvious make sense unless there is some universal code of ethics, which we are all aware of, and to which we all must appeal as the higher authority.
In Christianity, there is a very minute amount of disagreement between those who believe that Justice is an ideal which is external to God (but to which He completely conforms) and those who believe that Justice is internal to God. Either way, the Christian belief is that God is the just one, who presides over the earth.
We could ask, "Does lady justice have the right to judge?" ...but this would be a logical fallacy. Justice judges. That's what she does. Saying that justice has no right to judge is like saying that logic has no right to think. None of us fully attains to pure justice, and so we need to walk humbly: but if justice did not exist, any notion of "right" and "wrong" would completely crumble. In such a case we would be down to nothing more than personal opinion - and then we would be down to "The caveman with the biggest club decides what is right."
In the simple statement, "Hey, that's not fair!" We are asserting our belief that there is a universal standard of "fairness," which we believe is external to us and morally binding on all people. We are angry when the laws of "fairness" are violated to our hurt: we feel guilty when we violate them.
Justice is personified and explained different ways in different religions. In Christianity, Justice is personified in the person of God Himself. Therefore, the question of "Does God have the right to judge" becomes absurd. Of course He does - He is justice itself. How could He do otherwise? As the good book says, "shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?"
If God is Justice, then He has the right to judge, and can do nothing other than judge justly. We must now, then, move to the next logical step - asking ourselves, "how will we fare under the judgment of pure Justice?"
At this point, we may get pack onto Ray Comfort's train. Rather than examining the Ten Commandments, however, we may ask Hitchens, "You have identified loving one's children as a virtue. Now, if you were before the absolute personifaction of justice, do you think you would be able to say that you have loved your children perfectly, and never hurt them unjustly?" We could then ask, "If we were imagining a place where only perfect people could go, do you think you would deserve to go there?" The answer, as Hitchens would likely admit, would be no." This would enable us to speak of the grace of Christ: although, of course, there are many other questions which would need to also be answered along the way.

Review of Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis"

Several weeks ago, I preached a sermon entitled, "What is the Gospel? A Resonse to Liberalism and the Emergent Church." (Note: I should have somehow entitled it in a way which made it clear that not ALL people who call themselves "liberal" or "emergent" have the gospel wrong, but such is the way with concise titles..) In it, I briefly mentioned Brian MacLaren and Rob Bell as people with whom I disagree. I then spent most of my time refuting their views with the historic Christian position, which is clearly evident in Scriptures, and also (although I didn't know it at the time) the clear teaching of the early church. (In Justin Martyr's "Dialogues with Trypho," for example, he said exactly the same thing as I did, although at much greater length.)
I hope to have this sermon posted soon.
In the mean time, however, I thought that since I mentioned Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren in passing, it is only fair for me to deal specifically with their works - meeting them on their own terms, and seeing what they have to say. I have done this with Brian MacLaren in a previous post: here, I have carefully listened to and reviewed Rob Bell's theology in Velvet Elvis, so as to provide a summary of my thoughts on him.
Maybe I should preface this with a few small disclaimers. The first is this: unaware that I could simply download this book for free (see here), I purchased the audio version of Rob Bell's book. Thus, while I tried to get my quotes as close as possible, I don't have many page numbers noted, and the wording may be off slightly. I had to say, "Rob bell says somewhere..." a lot, unfortunately. The second disclaimer is that it has been nearly a month since I read/listened to this book. I actually think this is somewhat advantageous, however, since I kept good notes and also because the core of Bell's message has had some time to peculate. The final disclaimer is that since Bell charges $10.00 per sermon (which, I don't mind telling you, I think is just ridicules!) for his Nooma series, I was in no way willing to either steal or dish out that money to watch it all. Thus, my impressions of Rob Bell are formed almost entirely by his main and most popular book, "Velvet Elvis." I think this is fair enough, since this really is Bell's foundational book, in which he lays out his theology. (Similarly, I don't need to read everything that John Calvin ever wrote to know what he thought - I could just read the Institutes!)
OVERVIEW
The core of Rob Bell's message is this: like a painting of Elvis, the Christian faith is a work of art - a product of human imagination, of human self-expression. However, humans of every generation express themselves very differently. Therefore, it is necessary that every generation re-imagine, or repaint the Christian faith for themselves. He clarifies that, "By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained." (p. 12) In this book, Rob Bell provides the framework for such a re-invention, then constructs a new version of Christianity and, in the epilogue, provides an impassioned plea for conversion to his faith.
IN-DEPTH OVERVIEW
"Velvet Elvis" is part systematic theology, part missionary tract. In it, Bell presents a complete, coherent system of theology. Fascinatingly, he proceeds exactly as any theologian would, in laying out their theological works:
Jump - the Prolegomenon, or "how I think you should think about theology"
Yoke - on Hermeneutics, or how to read the Bible (also touching on morality)
True - on what is the essence, or most important thing in theology
(Tassels - the gospel that doesn't fit or, the reason some people think Bell is orthodox)
Dust: Christology, or "how to think about Christ"
New: Sin, Redemption and Salvation
Good: On Morality
JUMP: ON THEOLOGY
Rob Bell begins his book by discussing a trampoline. What is important about a trampoline, he asserts, is that you can jump on it. It is the springs which allow you to jump. By "jumping" he means that they help people feel close to God, love one another and live moral lives. By "springs," he means doctrines. The doctrines themselves are more useful than true. He specifically names the Trinity, saying something to the effect of, "People have been using this particular 'spring' to jump for years. But does that mean that it is essential? Couldn't we change it for something else? I am not saying that we should - but certainly we could. If we did so, couldn't we still love God, live moral lives, etc.?" Famously, he also mentions the virgin birth in another place. If Jesus was actually found to have a human father - say, a man named "Bob," then nothing significant would change. We could still "jump" on Christianity, whether or not Jesus is born of a virgin (thus, of God), or not.
YOKE: ON HERMENEUTICS
Bell brings three items of evidence to bear, on the topic of hermeneutics. First of all, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of brutality and violence. (Especially named is the slaughtering of the "innocent" people in Jericho). As mentioned in a previous post, Bell also uses such difficult passages as Psalm 137:9 to "prove" that the Bible is a conflicted book, which has no real message of its own. Third, Bell reminds the readers that Scriptures can and indeedhave been used to justify slavery and the abuse of women, among other atrocities. Fourth, he states that since every person comes to the Bible with their own perspective, it is impossible for the Bible to have a real voice of its own.
Thus, the perspective that a person, "can simply read the Bible and do what it says – unaffected by any outside influences," is "warped and toxic, to say the least" (p. 53).
He thus concludes, "It is possible to make the Bible say anything we want to, isn't it?"
Bell is not, however, saying that the Bible has nothing to say to us, or that just anybody can make it say what they want.
Rather, the idea of "a family story" is very important. Story gives meaning and direction to a community. However, he makes it clear that, "The Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted." Who, then, will make the decisions about interpretation? Here he invokes Jesus' words "I give you the keys of the kingdom/whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" and the fact the early church made binding decisions on various rules (e.g. circumcision) to prove that the community of Christians has the right to decide what Scriptures to keep, and which to ignore. As he says, "The Bible is a communal book. Most of the 'yous' are plural. It was written by people to people, who read it, evaluated it, accepted and rejected parts. We must see oursevles as part of this story, making decisions as a group." Committing the sin which C.S. Lewis has famously named "chronological snobbery," Rob Bell's discussion seems to sweep all of the great saints of old casually aside. Those who are now alive, and who have been welcomed into Bell's inner circle of friends are all welcome to help him "bind and loose" Scriptures, based on the authority they feel they have received from God through Jesus. As he says, "we must see ourselves and those around us as taking part in a huge discussion which has been going on for thousands of years. Because God has spoken, and everything else is commentary." Those who have gone on before, who have suffered hard and learned hard lessons about false teaching and truth are - due to their being deceased - excluded from the conversation.
Bell also mentions some of his thoughts on morality here. Because he more fully unpacks this in "New," I will leave his thoughts on that until then.
TRUE: ON THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
For those of you who have been reading along in my posts, you will be noticing a very marked similarity between Bell's theology so far and classical liberalism, (as summarized very briefly here, or written of at length here). On this point, however, Bell becomes almost stereo-typically a follower of Schleiermacher. What is the essence of Christianity?
Two quotes are highly illuminating:
"You have to understand that I started out playing in bands, back when alternative music was 'alternative' I understood music to be the raw art form that comes from your guts. Do it yourself. Strip it down. Bare bones. Take away all the fluff and the hype. This ethos heavily shaped my understandings of what church should be like: strip everything away and get down to the most basic elements. (98)"
For Schleiermacher, religion was about the "feeling of absolute dependence:" for Bell, it is about digging deep into the human soul and "keeping it real" - which is just about the same thing.
A second quote is also helpful: "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who's living rightly?" (p. 21.)
In this subtle turn of phrase, Bell underscores his basic theological premise: getting right with God is not about believing something, but about doingsomething.
Bell's religion, then, is about looking deep within one's self for religious feelings, and about doing good things by which to win God's favor.
TASSELS: THE CHAPTER THAT DOESN'T FIT
I found "Tassels" to be a highly confusing chapter. In it, Bell says something to the effect of, "Yes, of course, I know that Jesus died for my sins, and that I must trust in Him for my salvation..." He then goes on to discuss many very helpful ministry tips on burnout and "shooting your super-whatever" (in context - not taking one's self too seriously), on taking sabbath rests, and many other helpful points. If this chapter was all that Bell had written, one would certainly not find anything wrong with him. However, in the following chapters, we quickly see how he is able, on the one hand, to affirm that he holds orthodox Christian doctrine and on the other to state that people can be saved outside of Christianity, and that Christianity is all about works.
DUST: CHRISTOLOGY
To me, the most surprising aspect of Bell's book is that he seems to be rolling back Christianity to a pre-Christian stage, that is, to Judaism. He writes, "Before all the big language and grand claims, the story of Jesus was about a Jewish man, living in a Jewish village, among Jewish people, calling them back to the way of the Jewish God." He says later, "Remember, Jesus was a Torah-observing Jew who obeys the TANAK (that's fancy-talk for the Old Testament) word for word..." He says also, "Remember that Jesus said, 'Everything that I have learned I passed on to you.' Did Jesus go to school and learn like the other kids his age? [Thus - isn't he here saying that "all I received" refers only to his instruction in a Jewish synagogue?]" In summary, then, Bell seems to think that Jesus did not "fulfill" (Mat. 5:17) the Old Covenant and in this way make it "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13): rather, he called people back into it.
Here would be a good place to link up with thoughts which were omitted from "Yoke." Bell explains that Rabbi's would each produce their own unique commentaries on how to apply the TANAK to their lives. They would themselves live by these lengthy sets of rules, and would eventually amass followers. Those who wished to follow a certain Rabbi would "take on the yoke" of that rabbi. Thus, Jesus was actually teaching a set of rules, a new way of living, just like all the other rabbis were. The mere fact that a rabbi selected a person, however, is highly significant. The rabbi selected people because hereally believed those individuals could bear his distinctive yoke. Thus, when Jesus called His disciples - and, by extension, you and I - to follow Him, he was in effect proclaiming "you are able to do everything I will tell you to do, and to live perfectly by my standards." Bell elsewhere comments on the story of Peter walking on the water. Peter did not fall because he stopped trusting in Jesus - after all, Jesus wasn't sinking! He fell because he doubted himself.
Jesus has faith in our ability to work our way to perfection, as good Jews: we must have confidence in our abilities too.
In the most famous portion of his book, Bell questions what difference it would have made whether Jesus had really been born of a virgin, or had been begotten by some guy named "Bob." One wonders why Bell does not just come out and say that he does not think that Jesus is really God, the only begotten of the Father, the Second Member of the Trinity? For one thing, because in Bell's theological system, it does not really matter whether Jesus was God or not: we are saved by our own efforts, by (in some way) being good Jews, not by anything which Jesus may or may not have done.
NEW: ON SIN, REDEMPTION & SALVATION
In a very Kantian statement, Bell subtly dismisses the idea of original sin by questioning, "Did the story of Adam and Eve happen, or is it happening?" After all, we all feel temptations, and we all sin many times: the story of Adam and the snake is "our story" too.
If there is no such thing as original sin, in which all died, can there be an atonement, in which many were made alive? (See Romans 5)
Utilizing Bartian (that is, based on Karl Barth) theology, Bell writes that when Jesus said, "I will draw all men unto me," he really meant all men. In other words, His work was effective to save all, whether they have heard of His free gift or not. He uses the analogy of eating supper, and having the waitress come and announce to your table that your tab has been paid for. One can either live in the reality that their supper is paid for, or they can live in the reality that it is not paid for - the choice is yours. How is this decision made? Bell explains that, "Heaven is full of people whom God love and died for. Hell is full of people whom Jesus loved and died for. The difference is how they lived their lives."
Bell recounts with frustration a counseling session with a new Christian, racked with guilt. Doesn't he realize, Bell quires, that guilt and self-condemnation is out of place for a Christian or (to be consistent) with any human being? After all - the price has already been paid! We must now live as though we are redeemed people. When we mess up, we must admit it, confess it, make amends when and where we can, and move on to try to live a Godly life. What does this life look like?
As a guiding light, Bell presents the image of God within us all. Bell recounts that a very significant milestone occurred for him in a counseling office, where the counselor told him that his one goal in life was, "the relentless pursuit of who God made him to be. Everything else is sin, which must be repented of." Not being true to one's self (that is, to the image of God within, or to what God made a person to be) is sin: being really true to one's self is righteousness.
This is the essence of Bell's morality: understanding that all people, everywhere, are made in the image of God. Although there is sin in the world, Jesus died to defeat sin. Therefore, by simply living moral lives, every human may earn their way to God. This begs the question: what is morality for Bell?
GOOD: ON MORALITY
Considering Bell's insistence on Jesus as a Jew, one would think that he would call people in this chapter to eat kosher, to meet on Saturdays, etc. However, this is not consistent with his evolving model. Those were commands which have relevance for "back then." Today, we have other pressing needs - specifically, environmentalism, world compassion initiatives, and giving to the poor at home. In Bell's final chapter, then, he hammers hard on these issues. This is likely a very good way to conclude the book, because his ethics are very relevant and important, and few would disagree with him on what he says in this chapter.
Historic Christianity would only object (and object very strongly) that good works are to be the fruit of a new life, not the grounds of one's salvation, which is what Bell seems to make it.
Interestingly, though, in another chapter Bell talks about officiating the wedding of a non-Christian couple who were living together and "now wanted to make it official." He never condemned their sin of fornication, and called their wedding - officiated in the sacred space of nature and followed by a lengthy dance, including much alcohol - "the most sacred event I have ever experienced." Personal morality, especially on sexual ethics, does not seem to be a priority for Bell - and on this too historic Christianity would strongly disagree with him.
(THE MISSING CHAPTER: ON WHO IS GOD?)
To write a really consistent systematic theology, Bell should have written a chapter on "Theology Proper," or who is God. Bell's conception of God is vague partially, I suppose, because he doesn't think that doctrine is important. Perhaps he is also aware that to clearly and distinctly express his opinions about God would once and for all prove that he is presenting a non-Christian set of beliefs. Whether fairly or not, the image of God which I kept coming up with was "the health-and-wealth-god of the indie-rocker." Like a health-and-wealth God, the God of Rob Bell is a god who makes no demands, has no vantage-point of absolute truth, and demands no worship or obedience. For that matter, Bell's God even has trouble with basic communication. Rather than orienting the cosmos around Himself, Bell's god is a god who lives to serve. He does not bring endless riches in his wings, however, but endless poetic and artistic self-expression: as I said, this is the god of the indie-rocker, not the god of the yuppie.
This may be a caricature - but, to be fair, Bell doesn't present his views concretely, so the reader is left to piece them together for themselves. This is what I have gotten out of his work.
DOES ROB BELL GRASP THE GOSPEL?
This question seems redundant, but it is always helpful to provide clear statements in communication. No, I do not believe that Rob Bell grasps the gospel. The Gospel - just so that we are not in any way confused - is this:
1. Our first parents sinned, and in so doing doomed the human race (Gen. 1, Rom. 5)
2. Jesus came to die in our place, so that we could have new life through Him (Rom. 6)
3. After receiving this new life, God equips us to live a new life in His strength (the book of James)
4. After death, we are saved by God's grace and our perseverance in it (see the end of Revelations, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)
Christianity, rightly understood, is a religion of grace. We get to heaven not because of what we have done, but because of what he has done for us.Because we live in the knowledge of our totally undeserved redemption, we live new lives.
By contrast, all the other religions of the world - as well as false Christianity - relies on legalism.
1. We are not very bad sinners.
2. Jesus came to give us an example of how to live.
3. We must try really hard to follow Jesus' example
4. Jesus will probably give us a break and let us into heaven.
This approach leads to despair or pride. Pride when we think we are "making it," despair when we know we are not. There is also no real way of dealing with "really bad sins," and people tend to super-emphasize one or two "religious works" to try to counter-balance all of their sins. In Pharisaic Judaism, the emphasis was on Kosher: so long as one lived and ate clean, people were free to be full of all sorts of evil thoughts, lusts, etc. in their hearts. For Rob Bell, the emphasis seems to be on environmentalism, and some compassion initiatives. So long as one recycles and gives a bit, it seems, one need not worry about the internal state of their heart, whether their sexual lives are "moral," or where they will spend eternity.
To put it concretely: This is not the gospel.
WHY IS ROB BELL SO POPULAR?
Like many, I saw a Nooma video by Rob Bell long before I read this book. I thought that the message itself was kind of weak, but the graphics were very flashy. I liked the concept of putting so much visual-arts into a sermon and, since I didn't find anything really objectionable in the material, I decided that Rob Bell was a decent pastor, who only had one off-video. I figured he was trying to make a real difference in the world by presenting the age-old gospel in a relevant new way (as opposed to presenting a new faith, with the trappings and vocabulary of the old gospel, which is what he actually does). I think this is the experience of a lot of people. They just haven't bitten dipped deep enough to know that the apple is rotten.
I think Bell is also popular because Evangelical teaching is so very weak. Pastors don't confront serious issues like the relation of the Old Testament to the new, on cults and why the gospel is so very important, and how to read the Bible accurately. On the other side, individual Christians don't do any work either, and complain when a sermon goes over twenty minutes, and actually makes them think or (horror or horrors!) gives them some meaty homework. In the words of John Piper, many people never grow beyond a sunday-school faith. When they find their sunday-school faith is unable to come up with answers to their university-level mind, they abandon the faith or listen to someone like Bell who at least has SOME answer to their questions. Even if they are the wrong ones, he is the only one who is speaking on these topics, so who is to say the different?
"My people are destroyed for want of knowledge."
IS EVERYTHING THAT ROB BELL SAYS BAD?
It is always the half-lies which are hardest to distinguish from the truth: the full-lies are easy.
Many things which Rob Bell says are good, and they fill a void which evangelicals are missing (this is especially true of environmentalism). If you read only TASSELS and GOOD, you would probably actually benefit from this book. There are some helpful tips on pastoral ministry, and some good encouragements to environmentalism and compassion initiatives. It is good to respect what is right in the sight of all men (Rom. 12:17): however, believing that we will be saved from the wrath of God by our own efforts is both foolish and dangerous.
SHOULD I BE WORRIED ABOUT MY FRIEND? I HEARD HE/SHE ACTUALLYLIKES ROB BELL!!
In a conversation related by Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson mentions why Bell seems to have such an appeal to young evangelicals. It is because (to summarize) many people listen to him without really buying into his system, but only taking his moral exhortations (for example, to be environmentally friendly, etc.) to heart. This has been my experience: I think this is how I would have read Bell's book a couple years ago, before doing more research on Liberalism. (Note: my research on Liberalism has been exceedinglyhelpful in understanding Rob Bell. For an overview of my findings and links to more in-depth materials, see here)
I also think that a lot of people listen to one or two sermons, decide they like a person, and then (when that person is said to be a heretic) will defend that person to the death, without ever really looking into what that person believes, or what the charges are. These are people who bring a pail of whiteout to the Bible, and erase every verse which has to do with avoiding false teachers, then highlight and underline "thou shalt not judge" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" - as though not confronting sin in one's friend was the kindest thing which could be done.
However, I would warn the reader against heretic-hunting anybody who has Bell on their shelf. In my experience, someone who is into Bell has been turned off to normal church: they probably need a loving example of brotherly/sisterly companionship and encouragement in the faith more than they need to be directed to an article such as this.
DOES ROB BELL WORRY YOU?
In the 1920's a large portion of the church was carved away by Liberalism into what I would now describe as a non-Christian manifestation of the Christian faith. (Read more about that especially in my post, The Man Who Wrote Christianity and Liberalism). Many bitter battles were fought between the "Fundamentalists" and "Liberals" over the essentials of the faith, but in the end the Liberals took over most of the major denominations and seminaries. In the writings and workings of Rob Bell, Brian MacLaren and others like him, I believe that this same spirit of Liberalism is making a deep and bold cut deep into the territory of Evangelicalism. Although Satan could not have their fathers, he is content to steal away the children of Fundamentalism through the words of people like Rob Bell.
I am not sure whether to "worry" or not, since I am only a servant, and God is in charge. However, I definitely think that the issue of Liberal Emergent teaching is far more toxic and dangerous to true faith than many people give it credit for. It is worth some really serious investigation, and worth humble bloggers like myself taking a few minutes aside to review, critique and reject false teachers such as Rob Bell.

Sermon: "What is Love?"

One of the advantages of being technologically impaired is that while I have recorded almost all of the sermons I have preached, I haven't been able to get them all uploaded. This has given me the ability to critique my own self from a distance, and decide which sermons actually deserve to be heard again. The first sermon in this series on Psalm 36 definitely did not make the cut. However, I learned some things all over again and was very blessed by this sermon, entitled, "What is Love?" (Subtitle: "This sermon is not as boring as it sounds!!")
You can watch it below:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KGl0kNuP5E]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZSZuqJuweI]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtUPh6q6Iwc]
Or listen to the uncut audio at God is Love.
I think I only made one mistake in this sermon. My final point is that "love is wise." I go to great lengths to explain what wisdom looks like in an authority figure (that is, they modify their judgments to various situations). I should have seen that in the passage being studied, God's "righteousness" is like a mountain (that is, it is firm and doesn't move) while His "judgments" are like a great deep (that is, they are fluid, situational and profound). The way I said it towards the end of the sermon could be taken to say that God's ethics change with each changing person and situation (situational ethics) and this is not what the passage is saying. Probably a more accurate direction to take it (although it would have been awkward in this particular sermon) would be to apply it directly to the judgment-seat of Christ (Gen. 18:25, Psalm 58:11, Daniel 7:10, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelations 20:12, etc.). At that one, post-life judgment (Heb. 9:27), we can rest assured that God's judgments will be particularly adapted to the situation, the knowledge, the advantages and disadvantages of each individual person. This is different, however, than saying that His sense of right and wrong (or, His "moral compass") changes from situation to situation on issues He has spoken out on.
I also said some derogatory things towards younger people in authority (I was saying this against myself, as a recognition that I have much to learn from older people) but someone who heard this interpreted it as "you're right. So-and-so, who is a young pastor, just doesn't have much wisdom!" This was not what I was getting at. Young people can do a good job too, as Paul says, "Let no one look down on your youthfulness, but rather in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:12)
Other than these corrections, though, I think the rest of the sermon is quite sound and should be a blessing to those who hear it.
Enjoy and God bless!