Part 1 text
Michael Krahn
called "Velvet Elvis" written by Rob Bell. (I say 'making its rounds'
because the internet is a series of tubes... in case you didn't know.
Listen to the whole thing - it's worth it) Bell sets up a metaphor
where faith is a trampoline, and the springs "aren't God...aren't Jesus...
[they] are statements and beliefs about our faith that help give words
to the depths that we are experiencing in our jumping. I would call
these the doctrines of our faith."
The quote that's been drawing fire goes like this:
What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a
real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologist find
Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the
Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and
Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of
Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
Questions. Big questions, right?
Was Jesus born of a virgin?
What if...?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word "virgin" you
discover that the word "virgin" in the gospel of Matthew actually
comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the
Hebrew language at that time, the word "virgin" could mean several
things. And what if you discover that in the first century being "born
of a virgin" also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the
first time she had intercourse?
What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep
on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a
Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or
does the whole thing fall apart?
If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one
spring then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?
What if... Mary wasn't a virgin in the way we understand it? The way you
handle this question determines how you read this book.
Questions and Metaphors
All metaphors have their limits of course. They are much like cars -
they all eventually break down. In my own limited metaphor, the string
of reason and doctrine tethers the kite of faith and consequent
action. Lose the kite and the string falls limp; lose the string and
the tension and restraint that allows the kite to fly is gone. Freed
from its tether, the kite may initially surge upwards, but it
eventually returns to the ground, no longer capable of flight.
Reading the book brought to mind a few questions of my own, and I will
try to be kind and careful in asking them. Bible scholar Ben
Witherington has set the bar with his balanced critique of Rob's book
in his post "Velvet Elvis and the King'-- Has he Left the Building?" I
want to follow his lead here but I have to admit that I am more
disturbed by the content of this book than he is.
stephen...@gmail.com
"It hit me while I was watching that for him faith isn't a trampoline;
it's a wall of bricks. Each of the core doctrines for him is like an
individual brick that stacks on top of the others. If you pull one
out, the whole wall starts to crumble. It appears quite strong and
rigid, but if you begin to rethink or discuss even one brick, the
whole thing is in danger. Like he said, no six-day creation equals no
cross. Remove one and hte whole wall wobbles."
Bell goes on to say:
"I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin
birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more.
I'm a part of it, and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I
believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and that
God has plans to restore everything.
"But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one
spring, then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?
"This is because a brick is fixed in size. It can't flex or change
size, because if it does, then it can't fit into the wall. What
happens then is that the wall becomes the sum total of the beliefs,
and God becomes as big as the wall. But God is bigger than any wall.
God is bigger than any religion. God is bigger than any worldview. God
is bigger than the Christian faith.
...
"The first Christians announced this way of Jesus as 'the good news.'
That tells me the invitation is for everybody. The problem with
brickianity is that walls inevitably leave people out. Often it
appears as though you have to agree with all of the bricks exactly as
they are or you can't join. Maybe you have been outside the wall
before. You know exactly what I'm talking about."
I think that the example of Jesus being the son of Larry is there for
shock value in order to grab our attention. If it is true that people
are all up in arms about the Jesus son of Larry comment and Mary not a
virgin, then they need to reexamine what Bell is saying. He is saying
that we have to be able to examine our faith and reexamine it. It's a
part of sanctification, I believe. And I agree with what he said about
the speaker logically assuming that a literal 6 day creation =
crucifixion and resurrection, no literal 6 day creation = no
crucifxion and resurrection. When I read the Pentateuch, I learned
through reading the footnotes and scholarly texts added to my Bible
publication (I read a Zondervan NASB study Bible) that Moses wrote
Genesis through Deuteronomy (Moses may or may not have written
Deuteronomy or finished it because it speaks of his death and funeral,
so logically how can a man write about his own death and funeral).
With that truth in mind, it makes sense that these 1st five books were
written to a specific audience: the Israelites; and at a specific time
in history: the Exodus from Egyptian slavery. All 5 books written by
Moses to the Israelites who were in slavery for over 400 years. So I
think that people need to stop focusing on 6 literal days. It is not
the point. The point is that God created the world with man at the
crown of creation. We were created last, in God's image, and the only
ones who were created with life breathed into us by God himself. The
point is that we see in Gen 12 that God had a plan to use the
Israelites, we see how God had them in mind from the very beginning
and we end the book with the Israelites in Egypt. I think that the
thematic point is that God was in love with Israel from the beginning.
Israel was in slavery wondering where God was and He was using Moses
to tell them that He was there all along. I think that Bell is right
when he says that we can't focus on the doctrines because God is
bigger than that. He is bigger than our religion and He is bigger than
our faith. I think that pp. 22 - 25 makes this point explicitly clear.
Anyway, I look forward to continuing this discussion and I think we
are on the same page, but not sure, regardless, I am not a jump down a
person's throat kind of person. I really can't stand that. Because
neither of us nor anyone else is God, so it's impossible for anyone to
get it figured out. Which is another reason why I agree with Bell
about how Christianity changes and evolves. My brother who is going to
seminary said it doesn't. I am thinking to myself "well then you must
be God then since you have it all figured out." I mean, has he heard
of the Protestant Reformation, someone decided he disagreed with
something and sought to change it, therefore suggesting that
Christianity and faith changes. The only thing that doesn't change and
evolve is the fact that there is a God, he has a son named Jesus, who
is actually God, the same God as the one who is the father, and
there's also a holy spirit, also a part of the same singular unit that
manifests himself in 3 persons...the son lived on earth and died for
us, rose again to give us life. Basic. And God gave us life because of
Love.
have a great easter!! and I will talk to you more!
Michael Krahn
Thanks for joining me here.
A few things you mention will be covered in the next couple of posts
so I'll leave that there. Regarding the virgin conception... I am not
at odds at all with questioning and re-evaluating but it seems foolish
to say that if this doctrine was found to be untrue it wouldn't change
much about the way we live. It would change a lot of things. More on
that in future posts.
I am not trying to attack Rob Bell or ram my ideas down people's
throats... last I checked, reading a blog was an optional activity.
LOL
I do know that a) he is having a lot of influence and b) I am quite
uncomfortable with a number of portions of the book. I am trying to
take the "help me find clarity" route here by talking to those who are
his, for lack of a better word, "fans".
On Apr 7, 7:59 pm, "stephen.schl...@gmail.com"
Austin
wait and see what all you find uncomfortable. However, I do think
this issue of doctrine change is being read into a little too much.
As Stephen basically said, it is used for shock value, this imagery.
So here is my point of view, although our lives would change as far as
our beliefs about certain things, would it really change our lives in
such a way that our entire faith about Jesus, and God, and who they
were, etc. Would all that really have to be "rewired" into something
completely different, or could it possibly just change the way we look
at the virgin birth and all that is associated with it? I don't think
our faith should fall apart because of one possible difference in
truth. Just a thought. I am looking forward to see how the rest of
this works out.