Part 2 text
Michael Krahn
I commend Bell for encouraging an eschatological shift from a "when we
get over yonder" to a "let's bring heaven here" theology. He would do
well, however, to remember that the previous generation was not wrong
in longing for heaven, but rather in making this longing the dominant
theological sentiment. Let's not allow the pendulum to swing
completely and lose our longing to be with Jesus in eternity.
Bell's focus on the renewal God desires for us beyond his forgiveness
of us as individuals is sharp and needed. "To make the cross of Jesus
just about human salvation," he says on page 161 "is to miss that God
is interested in saving everything." He's correct in pointing out that
this aspect of salvation is absent in many theological systems. God
wants to renew us as individuals to be sure, but through us he wants
to renew our relationships and our culture as well.
But it is also important to remember that the fullness of this renewal
will happen only when Christ returns. What is so often spoken of as
"bringing heaven down" must not be confused as an ability on our part
to establish that which Christ alone will establish upon his return.
The nomenclature of evangelicalism is in dire need of refreshment, but
just as the word "Christian" is saddled with much detrimental baggage,
so are many other words and phrases that are nonetheless still
accurate and useful. There is a tendency to set up a reality to fight
against that doesn't actually exist in a lot of places. The worst
parts of evangelicalism are taken and a composite is made that looks
really bad. For example, maybe somewhere it's useful to NEVER use the
word religion and to say "Christ-follower" instead of "Christian" -
but its not that useful in the context I've been placed in and
creating a giant false dichotomy between the two is more of a
distraction than a help.
All that to say: what goes in Grand Rapids may not be what is needed
everywhere.
I also like the Nooma videos that I've seen. There wasn't anything
about them that set me off. The production is excellent, the content
is compelling, and the effect is positive overall.
The Issues
As G. K. Chesterton said "The object of opening the mind, as of
opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." There
seems to be a desire in much of the emerging church movement to favour
personal experience at the expense of belief in anything labeled
"orthodox". This is not a search of a new orthodoxy; it is a way of
wrapping orthodoxy around experience. When faith and belief are made
subservient to experience, there is little hope for objective truth.
An open mind is a good thing, and admiring mystery is beneficial, but
imbuing with mystery that which is no longer mysterious is simply a
gateway to untethered mysticism. A preference for what is unclear can
make mysterious that which need not be.
So why plant the idea that the gospels might be peppered with pagan
mythology and that this was done by the writers of the gospels to gain
some sort of cultural traction? According to Ben Witherington this
line of reasoning is not even relevant:
The cult of Mithras does not seem to have existed properly
speaking before the late first century A.D. It is of no relevance to
discussion NT books, and in particular the Jesus tradition;
The cults of Mithras and Attis and Dionysius were not religious
cults which centered on real historical persons, unlike Christianity.
As such they did not talk about actual virgin births any more than
they talked about bodily resurrections of a person like Jesus. It is
simply not true as well that Julius Caesar or other Emperors were said
to be born of virgins. Remarkable births or births signaled by comets
are one thing, virgin births another.
Introducing these ideas seems to discredit the gospels and as a back
door introduces the concept of molding truth to fit culture rather
than shaping culture with truth.
There is much focus here and in the emerging movement in general on
eliminative action. "If only we would do this, AIDS/poverty/loneliness
would be wiped out." These are noble goals to be sure. Christ said
both that we should feed the hungry, but that the poor would always be
with us. Our actions, then, aren't designed to eliminate, but to
alleviate. Of course Christ's statement should never be used as an
excuse for inaction but neither should it be ignored completely.
In keeping with the Biblical metaphor of being salt, we are to be salt
that we might prevent or slow the decay of this world. Salt does not
rehabilitate, it slows decomposition. This should not be seen as a
resignation to failure, but as a looking forward with anticipation to
that which Christ will accomplish.
I agree with Bell that honest doubt and intellectual investigation are
important to forming a robust faith. Bill Coleman is the Pastor of the
church I attend and when I ran the quote by him he replied that
"Examining or rethinking a matter does not make it fall apart, in
fact, it should do the opposite. It should confirm it one way or the
other."
This sums up what I find problematic about Bell's book: He seems eager
to examine and rethink but not to come to any conclusions.
benn...@gmail.com
1. Questioning:
I saw Bell speak in Richmond once and part of his talk was that part
of his preaching was to raise the questions and give the listener the
opportunity to wrestle with the question. I wonder if that is not his
mode here. Not so much to question doctrine or orthodoxy as to allow
for people to ask and wrestle with authentic questions. My experience
has been that when I have asked questions and been allowed to
faithfully wrestle with them in a "safe" environment the faith that
results is more authenticlly mine - not so much that I own it but that
its a part of me. I find Coleman's quote to be very true in my own
faith journey.
Finally, I know that I am hesitant when my congregants ask questions
of faith to provide an answer too quickly - first, because I don't
always have the answers, and second, I am afraid they will too readily
accept what I say without thinking about it because "well, pastor said
it...and he's been to seminary school so that must be accurate." (Yes,
maybe I think I have too much influence with the folks in my
church...the often remind me otherwise!)
2. Emerging Church:
i hear some of the concern regarding the emerging church and their
tendency to "disregard" orthodoxy. However, my sense of this movement/
conversation is that it's not so much to question the foundations
(although it does do that from time to time) of doctrine as it is to
question the application of the faith to current/contemporary/emerging
culture. Serving in a mainline protestant church and witnessing its
decline has been painful. Mostly because the church is less about its
stated mission of "making disciples," and more about maintaining the
institution and all its trappings. I believe this is what folks in
the emerging church are reacting against. And unfortunately the baby
gets thrown out with the bath water in that all orthodox doctrine and
institutional dogma become synonymous and so rejecting one means
rejecting both. Thoughts/reactions?