Rob Bell is at it again...making evangelicals and conservative Christians squirm while garnering praise from more "progressive Christians." You can read about it here, on a Huffington Post post.
I want to offer some thoughts on the Huffington Post article. I realize that it is an article about an interview. However, I do think that this article gives enough to get at some of the major issues associated with the debate of eccelsial sanction regarding the LGBT lifestyle and part of the essence of Bell's position.
Apparently one of the main angles through which Bell approaches the debate is that of loneliness. The article begins by stating the obvious--any properly adjusted person does not wish to go through life alone. Listen to popular music...watch popular movies...so many of the dominant themes deal with relationships. And I can get on board with this idea--humanity needs and longs for meaningful relationships. Genesis 2 states as much.
"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner" (2:18; NRSV).
"Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; NRSV).
There are other passages in Scripture that supports these as well. However, it is important to realize something. The implications of these passages is that ultimate relationship fulfillment between human beings is to be found in the opposite sex (Where ultimate relational fulfillment can be found in another discussion for another time.). And here is where the rubber apparently meets the road for Bell. The Bible, with its statements--no matter how explicit--is outdated. By implication, Scripture cannot effectively speak to the progressions of our modern context. It is irrelevant for many situations. For Bell, people, flesh and blood, is the determining factor. Personal experiences carry the day.
Such a posture is not surprising. The reality is that advocates of the LGBT movement must respond to the explicit statements in Scripture that either condemn that lifestyle or suggest that a heterosexual one is the Biblical intention. And one of the most popular ways to respond is to bemoan the antiquity of Scripture. Apparently, this is what Bell is doing. Essentially, "Scripture is too old, too ancient to address the nuances of our contemporary situation." Therefore, in Bell's mind the Church must jettison what is perceived to be the source of its irrelevancy...or at least ignore it.
I find it laughable to say that Scripture--or more precisely, the Church's reliance upon Scripture to respond to the developments of time --will render the Church irrelevant. The Church, with its Scripture, has been one of the most relevant institutions throughout the world for millennia. This is just not going to change. However, I must ask if Bell is trying to communicate something else with his statement, "[T]he church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."?
Indeed, there is a socio-historical chasm between the ancient writers and any contemporary situation. The writers did not, and in some instances could not, anticipate the issues that face a modern American context. Therefore, the application of Scripture is rarely easy and simple. We can rarely take Scripture and whimsically and simplistically drop its teaching into a contemporary context. No, the application of Scripture involves the consideration of the Canon's overall testimony, a consideration of how the socio-historical situation affected the composition of the text, how the contemporary situation adds unforeseen variables and nuances, just to name a few. If this is what Bell is trying to communicate, then I can get on board. He just did a terrible job of communicating it. However, to imply or suggest that Scripture is no longer authoritative because it is too old and "just doesn't understand what we know" smacks of heresy.
I use the term heresy intentionally. Bell has been pushing the boundaries of orthodox Christianity for some time now, and this situation presents nothing different. All Bell needs to do is come out and explicitly say a few things and the debate would be over. Nevertheless, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are that it is a duck. At the very least, Bell speaks of a spirituality that has fewer and fewer anchors in orthodox theology. But in my opinion, we just need to place him in the same category of the likes of Joel Osteen--people who carry the Christian title only strategically and massage Scriptural teachings as they see fit.
So what about the LGBT debate? This is an intense and complicated debate. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that in my mind we must begin our theological discourse with the definitive statements offered by Scripture. So, what does Scripture specifically say about humanity's longing for relationships and where is that ultimate fulfillment? And we must do that with a respect for the original intentions. (So, yes. I believe that the writers of Scripture enjoyed a type of revelatory enlightenment that is no longer experienced.). Armed with these statements, a definitive framework can be created, within which a debate can commence. But make no mistake, if that framework is violated, heresy is imminent. Theological discourse must be grounded in Scripture...not in philosophy, not sociology, not experience, etc. Because Bell misses this point, his theology will always be left wanting.
I want to offer some thoughts on the Huffington Post article. I realize that it is an article about an interview. However, I do think that this article gives enough to get at some of the major issues associated with the debate of eccelsial sanction regarding the LGBT lifestyle and part of the essence of Bell's position.
"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner" (2:18; NRSV).
"Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; NRSV).
There are other passages in Scripture that supports these as well. However, it is important to realize something. The implications of these passages is that ultimate relationship fulfillment between human beings is to be found in the opposite sex (Where ultimate relational fulfillment can be found in another discussion for another time.). And here is where the rubber apparently meets the road for Bell. The Bible, with its statements--no matter how explicit--is outdated. By implication, Scripture cannot effectively speak to the progressions of our modern context. It is irrelevant for many situations. For Bell, people, flesh and blood, is the determining factor. Personal experiences carry the day.
Such a posture is not surprising. The reality is that advocates of the LGBT movement must respond to the explicit statements in Scripture that either condemn that lifestyle or suggest that a heterosexual one is the Biblical intention. And one of the most popular ways to respond is to bemoan the antiquity of Scripture. Apparently, this is what Bell is doing. Essentially, "Scripture is too old, too ancient to address the nuances of our contemporary situation." Therefore, in Bell's mind the Church must jettison what is perceived to be the source of its irrelevancy...or at least ignore it.
I find it laughable to say that Scripture--or more precisely, the Church's reliance upon Scripture to respond to the developments of time --will render the Church irrelevant. The Church, with its Scripture, has been one of the most relevant institutions throughout the world for millennia. This is just not going to change. However, I must ask if Bell is trying to communicate something else with his statement, "[T]he church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense..."?
Indeed, there is a socio-historical chasm between the ancient writers and any contemporary situation. The writers did not, and in some instances could not, anticipate the issues that face a modern American context. Therefore, the application of Scripture is rarely easy and simple. We can rarely take Scripture and whimsically and simplistically drop its teaching into a contemporary context. No, the application of Scripture involves the consideration of the Canon's overall testimony, a consideration of how the socio-historical situation affected the composition of the text, how the contemporary situation adds unforeseen variables and nuances, just to name a few. If this is what Bell is trying to communicate, then I can get on board. He just did a terrible job of communicating it. However, to imply or suggest that Scripture is no longer authoritative because it is too old and "just doesn't understand what we know" smacks of heresy.
I use the term heresy intentionally. Bell has been pushing the boundaries of orthodox Christianity for some time now, and this situation presents nothing different. All Bell needs to do is come out and explicitly say a few things and the debate would be over. Nevertheless, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, chances are that it is a duck. At the very least, Bell speaks of a spirituality that has fewer and fewer anchors in orthodox theology. But in my opinion, we just need to place him in the same category of the likes of Joel Osteen--people who carry the Christian title only strategically and massage Scriptural teachings as they see fit.So what about the LGBT debate? This is an intense and complicated debate. Nevertheless, suffice it to say that in my mind we must begin our theological discourse with the definitive statements offered by Scripture. So, what does Scripture specifically say about humanity's longing for relationships and where is that ultimate fulfillment? And we must do that with a respect for the original intentions. (So, yes. I believe that the writers of Scripture enjoyed a type of revelatory enlightenment that is no longer experienced.). Armed with these statements, a definitive framework can be created, within which a debate can commence. But make no mistake, if that framework is violated, heresy is imminent. Theological discourse must be grounded in Scripture...not in philosophy, not sociology, not experience, etc. Because Bell misses this point, his theology will always be left wanting.
No comments:
Post a Comment