This is something I agree with N.T. Wright about, because I have seen it so often in academic settings. "One hears it said frequently that all reading of scripture is a matter of interpretation, with the implication that one person's interpretation is as good as another's. This is of course a variation on the classic postmodern position that there are no such things as texts, only interpretations, since when I read a text it 'becomes' something different from what it 'becomes' when you read it."1
The Bereans recognized there are a lot of interpretations being fed to Christians today. It's Hard Out Here for a Pastor, is what I say (apologies to Three 6 Mafia). But that doesn't mean that there's not only one right interpretation. And that doesn't mean that you cannot find it. The Bereans did (Acts 17:11) because they were in their Bible daily, comparing what was being said to them against what was found in the Bible. (Unfortunately, Wright, in the title referenced in note 1, does not know how to nail down Biblical authority to this simple process.)
Each generation of believers has to fight against relativism and for an understanding of revelation. Read that again, because you missed it, though the fact is nothing new. What gets me is that so many Christians today cannot think critically about what is presented to them as truth. It's like, we can do it in the hard sciences, but we cannot do it in the scriptures. We are trained to think critically and evaluatively in academic settings, but turn-off that process in evangelical settings. Proximity to a pew (or a Christian bookstore) makes us switch off our brain, stop concentrating so we can contrast and compare with what is written (read Isa 8:16,20), and unthinkingly accept whatever the latest evangelical idiot, excuse me, idol presents. That's what I call Bobblehead Believerism (just nod yes, like you understand).
Okay, I can see I'm going to have to illustrate this idea. Let me spread some purple ink on Rob Bell's Elvis again.2- Bell says the doctrine of the Trinity "emerged in the several hundred years after Jesus' resurrection," when actually it was there all along, Christians simply coined a word to describe it.
- Bell says, "God has no thingness because there's no end to God," yet he wrote a book (some thing)—one that displays his attributes.
- Bell says, "The phrase 'personal relationship' isn't found anywhere in the Bible," but Paul spoke of wanting to know Christ in the fellowship of his sufferings.
- Bell says, "At one point in church history, a group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday but Sunday." No, when Jesus met with his homeboys after the resurrection it was on the first day of the week, and the rest of the New Testament evidence is that this practice was continued from earliest times (John 20:19,25; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2).
- Bell says, "I can't find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners." Well, how far did you look? Paul did in 1 Tim 1:15, where the word "chief" [KJV] means first and "foremost" [ESV] (for Jesus, see Luke 18:13).
I object. I think Bell is perpetuating bobblehead evangelicalism. Bobblehead believers simply nod their head yes, accepting everything they read, and never challenge what is said by searching out the ideas in the scriptures.
Robbie talks about a woman in his church who wanted to simply "get back to the Bible and take it for what it really says," and labels such a view of the Bible "warped and toxic."
Bell says, "When you embrace the text as living and active, when you enter into its story, when you keep turning the gem, you never come to the end." No, but you can come to a conclusion. Stop being such a Bobblehead!
BTW, I know that looks like a bobblehead of Rob Bell in a suit, but to find out who it really is go to http://www.nbcuniversalstore.com/detail.php?p=8368
1 Wright, N.T. The Last Word. (New York: HarperSanFranciso, 2005), 111.
2 Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005).
4 comments:
No doubt you hit some balls out of the park. I think people like RB because of how he comes across. He message is typically points to the good things of God and His creation. I have connected with his videos but could not get into his Elvis book. It reminded me of my philosophy professors in school who spoke from an authority rooted in speculation and doubt. I find that many have become burned out on what can be labeled “dogmatic negative fundamentalism” which is why they gravitate to the soft light messages found in many churches today. These people were good at telling others what was wrong but did not know how to bridge truth and transparency. I think of how Christ handled the women at the well. Helping her see that she was wrong but handling her heart in such a way that brought her to repentance. The church let the message that brings hope, faith and love to the lives of others be taken from them. Giving people direction in a confusing and lost world is the cornerstone of our faith. As one of your students I found vision, strong biblical teaching and message that spoke to my heart. I found that I could walk with God. The last era brought in a flood of folks who were too afraid to have a relationship with God yet found themselves the authority of all that was right or wrong. They took their message of angst and burned out a generation. Most folks already know what they have or doing is wrong…they are looking for answers. They don’t need discipleship that places rules and mandates upon them but rather sets them free to become all they were created to be. People need discipleship in this war they find themselves in…teaching them the fundamentals of the Bible and how they have the power through God to set others free. We need to move from the obligation of ministry we present to people to the opportunity that is before them. It is a privilege to be a part of what God is doing in this world…regardless of the responsibility I believe the cross brings upon us. My heart and soul thirsts to understand and be a part of that bigger picture. Thanks for making us think.
For a socio-rhetorical review of Rob Bell's recent appearance tauting his new book see
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/rob-bell-hits-lexington-and-packed-out.html
(I say this tongue-in-cheek as Witherington is famous for his "socio-rhetorical" commentaries on the Bible. This is a scholarly method of interpretation that can bring out some [few] insights, but not one to be used alone, as you end up focusing more on values about the text than on what the text of scripture itself says. It views the text being studied as "a performance of language." 'Nuff said.)
In summary, after commenting on Bell's star quality for Zondervan publishing, Ben states,
1. RB has not used good enough sources so that he can really understand
2. Jesus was not a rabbi in the later (post AD 200 and medieval) sense as Bell asserts
3. Robbie spends too much time listening to Ray Vanderlaan, and is not critical enough of his sources
4. Bell is ethically evasive
5. He confuses sexual orientation with sexual behavior, and therefore concludes that the Bible is silent regarding orientation (homosexuality) or LGBT issues
Interesting blog! I suppose most of my "emergent" peers must consider me entrenched in Brickworld propoganda as well, being unable to shake off mild irritation at what I saw as logical fallacies from ol' Rob and the emergent movement at large. It's very nice to see a polite, intelligent, and well-cited blog deftly countering some of their peculiar theological assertions.
And all hail the Dwight Schrute Bobblehead!
good thinking and writing.
or as the emergents say
"conversation"... and how many times can they say the word "community"??
Post a Comment