The Hostile Church (A Critique of the Reform Movement)

Two events transpired today that inspired me to write this entry.

1) A dear friend of mine informed me that he no longer believes in God and has left the Church.

and

2) Pastor and Author Rob Bell announced a new book.

While these two events may seem unrelated, I believe that by analyzing the second, we may be able to gain some insight into the first.

Exposition:

Bell is the pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan and author of three books, Velvet Elvis, Sex God, and Jesus Wants to Save Christians.

In Velvet Elvis, Rob talks about Jesus in progressive, but relatively benign way. He affirms the Church and faith in Christ while questioning the necessity of some of the doctrinal crust that we have attached to Christian faith, as well as the lack of intellectual rigor found in Christianity today.

In the opening chapter of the book, Bell asserts that doctrine can be dangerous, if you make doctrine an unyielding brick wall, you run the risk of hurting yourself if you encounter something that seems to disprove your doctrine. He asserts that doctrine should instead be treated like a trampoline, something that you use to propel yourself to new insights about God.

He goes on to pose a question to the reader, "If it came out that Jesus was not born of a virgin, and actually was born of a man and a woman, would you stop being a Christian?"

Evangelicals hated this question, precisely because contained in it are several key points of modern church doctrine -- the nature of original sin, the truth of prophecy, and the inerrancy of scripture.

Bell goes on to say that he believes Jesus was born of a virgin and all of that other good doctrinal stuff we adhere to. Regardless, the evangelical church was not pleased by this and since then have been doing everything in their power to pronounce Bell a "false prophet" short of actually calling him that.

Sex God is a very good book about the relationship between God and Man, and a little bit about sex as well. It was unoffensive to the established church.

Jesus Wants to Save Christians, though provocatively titled, was also relatively benign. The book takes a brief, but cohesive view of scripture, from Genesis through the Gospels, exegetically advocating for non-violence. I don't remember much of an uproar about this book, but who knows, it may draw some ire from our good friend Calvin.

"Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt....Wherefore [God] does demand of us so extreme severity...and [to] forget humanity when the matter is to combat for his glory....[H]umanity must be almost obliterated from our memories…"

Yeah, so there's that.

Cut to February 26, 2011. Bell announces his new book Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and Everyone Who Ever Lived. The publisher's blurb reads as follows:

"Now, in Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins."

This blurb blew up twitter. Every single reform pastor that I am following tweeted or retweeted or linked their response to this, A PUBLISHER'S BLURB, without having read the material.

It was almost cathartic, everyone finally got to say, "AHAH! We knew it, Bell is a dirty, rotten Universalist!!!!"

Responses:

Matt Carter of Austin Stone: Hell is not evil. To send an innocent man to die on a cross when there is no hell would be Evil. The cross seperate from Hell makes NO sense

I give Carter credit here, he asserts a theological position about the cross, hell, and atonement. He doesn't attack Bell.

John Piper of the monopoly on American Christian thought: Farewell Rob Bell. http://dsr.gd/fZqmd8

(The URL is a link to an article by Justin Taylor)

Piper is less gracious (he must not have elected any to Rob) and dismisses a fellow pastor. The article that he links is the one that inspired me to write this.

Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church: You deserve hell. Everything else is a gift.

Very Driscoll, blunt, lacks nuance, poorly sourced.

Joshua Harris author of I Kissed Dating Goodbye: There's nothing loving about preaching a false gospel. This breaks my heart. Praying for Rob Bell.

Harris uses the old Christian gossip fallback of "Have you heard about Susie? She's pregnant, we should all be praying for her."

And lastly, there is this wonderful article by Justin Taylor. Rob Bell: Universalist?

Before we get into the details, I have to say that I love his use of a question mark in the headline, it's entirely unsuggestive. I might change the name of this entry to Reformed Church: Evil?

"John Piper once wisely wrote, “Bad theology dishonors God and hurts people. Churches that sever the root of truth may flourish for a season, but they will wither eventually or turn into something besides a Christian church.”

Good move, going straight to the Piper, third most authoritative voice on doctrine behind Paul and Calvin. (In front of Jesus). Also, just so we're clear, anything outside of 5 points Calvinism is "bad theology." Somehow the Catholic Church has yet to wither.

"It is unspeakably sad when those called to be ministers of the Word distort the gospel and deceive the people of God with false doctrine. But it is better for those teaching false doctrine to put their cards on the table (a la Brian McLaren) rather than remaining studiously ambiguous in terminology."

"That damn Rob Bell was such a snake in the grass, we've finally outed him, he can join Brian McLaren and anyone gay in the false prophets club."

It's interesting to note that he mention's Bell's "studiously ambiguous terminology" as if, unless you come out and definitively state every piece of your theology, you're not to be trusted. This is the kind of unnuanced approach that was addressed in Velvet Elvis and which non-reformers like myself find so deeply frustrating. (At least I find it deeply frustrating).

"So on that level, I’m glad that Rob Bell has the integrity to be lay his cards on the table about universalism. It seems that this is not just optimism about the fate of those who haven’t heard the Good News, but (as it seems from below) full-blown hell-is-empty-everyone-gets-saved universalism. I haven’t seen the book yet and was hesitant to say something based on the publisher’s description (which usually isn’t written by the author). But this video from Bell himself shows that he is moving farther and farther away from anything resembling biblical Christianity"

"He's a Universalist! It says so right here in the book I haven't read!"

He attaches a video by Rob that I can't figure out how to link, but you can see it on his blog's page.

It's worth noting that this is the second iteration of the article that I read. The first version was more inflammatory and subsequently edited. Here are his justifications.

"2) I updated a couple of things on the original post. First, I deleted “seems to” with regard to Bell’s moving farther away from biblical Christianity. Second, I changed “unambiguous about his universalism” to “lay his cards on the table about universalism.” Third, I deleted the 2 Cor. 11:14-15 reference at the end. I do think it’s important to recognize the biblical theme that false teachers look like cuddly sheep and like angels of light. But let’s wait for the book so we can see all his cards laid out on the table."

Here is the verse that he omitted from the second version. "14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."

Here we have it folks, Rob Bell is a servant of Satan.

"3) I have not read all of Bell’s book, though I have read some chapters that were sent to me. When the book is published there were be detailed reviews, and I will link to them. I think that the publisher’s description combined with Bell’s video is sufficient evidence to suggest that he thinks hell is empty and that God’s love (which desires all to be saved) is always successful. I should have been more careful in my original post not to imply that Bell isdefinitely a universalist. He may believe that some people go out of existence and are not thereby saved. The materials I have seen sound more like universalism though."

Ahh, so he has read some chapters. That lends a little more weight to the argument, but not much. I like that he notes that God desires all to be saved, but sadly he didn't pick everyone to be, because he is sovereign, but not sovereign enough to fulfill his desire to save everyone...wait, where was I?

"5) If Bell is teaching that hell is empty and that you can reject Jesus and still be saved, he is opposing the gospel and the biblical teaching of Jesus Christ. You may think that’s judgmental to say that; I think it’s being faithful. I would encourage a careful study of 1 Timothy to see what Paul says about false teaching and teachers."

See, this is what really bothers me. Citations needed all over this thing. You were more than happy to link to the verse calling Rob a servant of Satan, link me some of Jesus' words on hell. Jesus mentions hell about a dozen times, mostly in the sermon on the mount. Unfortunately for us, prior to the Christian tradition, believers in Yaweh did not really have a conception of the afterlife, so we can't be entirely sure what Jesus means when he says, "Hell" (Gehenna in Greek). It's also important to note that Jesus doesn't really draw a correlation between hell and atonement. It's just really difficult for us to make any definitive statements about what hell is and how/if one ends up there with such a limited reference. I imagine Bell's book will have a much more informed insight into this than I do. Also, let's be careful in attributing Timothy to Paul.

"7) Let’s remember to pray. Rob Bell needs to know and teach the liberating gospel of grace—including that Christ absorbed the Father’s wrath on behalf of those who trust in him and repent of their sins. And there are tens of thousands of folks who look to Rob Bell as a biblical teacher and leader. May God give much mercy."

Having read all of his books and seen him speak live, I can attest to the fact that Bell does, in fact, "teach the liberating gospel of grace." His books greatly influenced me as a young man and continue to do so this day. Not only in strengthening my allegiance to Christ, but also in inspiring me to pursue him with my mind as well as my spirit.

A Personal Conjecture:

Back to what's really bothering me. My friend who has decided that he no longer believes in God.

This friend of mine has a degree in Biblical Texts and can read the New Testament in its original Greek. He's familiar with the development of the canon and of modern doctrine. He has also been a Jesus-loving and edifying believer throughout the entirety of our friendship.

What changed?

Well, when one learns about the bible and canon and doctrine, one starts to realize that everything isn't as straightforward as it sounds.

We hadn't even decided if Jesus was divine until 325 (and that was with Constantine's prodding). We didn't have a canon established until the 5th century. The authorship of some books are in doubt, the time that some books were written is in doubt. Hell, Luther himself wanted to boot James and Revelation from the canon (you biblical literalists can ponder that one).

This is bound to create some cognitive dissonance for someone who has grown up in church being taught that belief is a brick wall. I know that I've experienced it in my classes.

My friend, being both a Christian and an academic, went looking for answers, and for a while he found them from his professors, friends, and books.

Where he didn't find them was the Church.

He tried several different churches, but none of them seemed to be asking the same questions he was asking. Eventually, he found the people who tried to answer his questions Ehrman, Dawkins, and Hitchins.

One of my former professors, Dr. Howard Miller (gay - boo, Christian - yay!), lamented the fact that Christians today don't take an intellectual approach to the Gospel. I'm starting to believe that the kind of polemic that I witnessed on Twitter today is the reason why.

It seems to be that if one does not fall in line with the dominant teaching of the age, reformed neo-Calvinism, then one is not a believer.

If you ask tough questions about doctrine, about faith, and about the nature of existence, then one is a heretic and false prophet.

There's no structure in modern Christianity to support my friend, so even when he tries to engage he feels alienated. And that breaks my heart.

On Hell:

As I was writing this, I noticed something in all of the responses to Bell's announcements. All of the pastors that I've referenced seem to fetishize Hell.

It's as if the Gospel is meaningless to them unless they know that some (most) people will burn. This is what I don't understand. Why is it offensive to think that God's grace is the most powerful force in the universe? Why is it heretical to hope that all will be saved?

I want to pose a question to them, a question asked by Tony Campolo.

"Would you be a Christian if there was no afterlife?"

I've been writing now for a few hours, and I've lost some steam. I may come back to this topic if I'm reenergized, but these are my thoughts. A defense of Bell, a critique of polemic, and most of all, a lament for my friend.

Psalm 137 (A Commentary)

A friend of mine posted this status recently. While he was being deliberately inflammatory, I feel like it provides a good springboard for a lot of biblical discussion.

The full text for this verse is:

By the rivers of Babylon—

there we sat down and there we wept

when we remembered Zion.

On the willows there

we hung up our harps.

For there our captors

asked us for songs,

and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying,

‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’

How could we sing the Lord’s song

in a foreign land?

If I forget you, O Jerusalem,

let my right hand wither!

Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth,

if I do not remember you,

if I do not set Jerusalem

above my highest joy.

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites

the day of Jerusalem’s fall,

how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!

Down to its foundations!’

O daughter Babylon, you devastator!

Happy shall they be who pay you back

what you have done to us!

Happy shall they be who take your little ones

and dash them against the rock!

While at first, it's shocking to see infanticide associated with joy, in context this makes a lot more sense.

First off, sorry guys, David didn't write all the Psalms. As you can see here, this was written sometime during or after the diaspora to Babylon (586 BC, roughly 500 years after David died).

This psalm is actually pretty famous among diaspora Jews (and was later appropriated by the American slaves) as a lament for Zion. It's been set to music several times.

Anyway, what's important about this verse is not really the baby killing, but the yearning of a people for their homeland. When the Jews are yearning not to forget Zion, they are really hoping not to forget the Lord, and what he had done for them by bringing them to the promised land. To a pre-rabbinic Jew, the temple/Zion/Jerusalem was the center of worship, a physical manifestation of God's goodness and faithfulness. They set Zion above their highest joy, as the modern Christian is to count all but Christ as a loss.

This verse also serves to remind us that the Bible is a historical narrative. It's not something you can just grab verses out of willy nilly. It tells a cohesive story, in a very human way, particularly in the Old Testament. Here, we encounter very real human emotion, this is a lament a cry for justice. Is it not human to take glee in repaying one's oppressors? You'll notice that the Bible makes no value judgment on this statement, it merely says that those taking revenge will be happy. It's just a statement of human nature, it's a historical narrative.

What I want to stress, is that for the diaspora Jews, to take such an extreme revenge is justice. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Anyone who rose against the chosen people was the worst kind of sinner, and deserved the harshest of judgment. These babies are Babylonians, they are of the lineage that tore down David's Temple, they deserve to die. It's perfect justice.

If you, dear reader, as a modern Christian are shocked by this, I urge you to ponder your own theology. There are many forms of Christianity today that (if they had the balls to be honest) would just as soon condemn those killed babies to eternity in hell, because God decided that there were only so many seats in heaven, and his justice is perfect.

Prothero! (Rufio!)

Here is an interview done by Stephen Prothero, who wrote the excellent, Jesus in America which you should all read, with Jennifer Knust, whom I've never heard of.

This is the link.

She talks about sex and whatnot in the bible, it's not terribly in depth or illuminating. However, she talks about Ruth and Boaz, and claims that it is an example of pre-marital sex being used for a blessing.

"Knust: Perhaps the most striking example is in the story of Ruth, though there are other examples as well. According to the Book of Ruth, when the recently widowed Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi were faced with a famine in Ruth's homeland Moab, they returned to Israel impoverished and with little hope of survival. Ruth took to gleaning in the fields to find food for herself and Naomi. The owner of the fields, a relative of Naomi named Boaz, saw Ruth and was pleased by her. When Naomi heard about it, she encouraged Ruth to adorn herself and approach Boaz at night while he was sleeping to see what would happen. Ruth took this advice, resting with him until morning after first "uncovering his feet" (in Hebrew, "feet" can be a euphemism for male genitals). The next day, Boaz goes to town to find out whether he can marry her, and, luckily, another man with a claim to Ruth agrees to release her. They do marry and together they produce Obed, the grandfather of King David.

None of this would have been possible if Ruth had not set out to seduce Boaz in a field, without the benefit of marriage."

Knust is being a little disingenuous here. It's true that Ruth and Boaz probably had sex that night, but it wasn't just sex for the sake of sex. For the ancient Hebrews, there was an engagement period of one year prior to living together. This was called the Ketuvah (כתובה) (the three letter root of chet, tav, bet [כתב] in Hebrew just means that the word pertains to writing). The ketuvah could be initiated in three ways, a gift, a written document, or sex.

So in a sense, Boaz didn't so much marry Ruth out of altruism, but more because they had instigated the ketuvah and essentially had to marry her. So really, the most subversive thing about this union was that Ruth essentially proposed to Boaz. Feminism?

Satan Part 1 (Satan in the Hebrew Bible)

Be it as an anti-hero, a clown, a trickster, a tempter, or the Lord of Evil, Satan is ubiquitous in Western culture. Despite being consistently portrayed as a some sort of nefarious spiritual being arising from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Satan is conspicuously absent from biblical narrative. The name Satan only appears three times in the Hebrew Bible, and Lucifer (commonly identified with Satan in modern thought) appears once in Isaiah. Where then, did the common Satan mythos arise from? The answer lies in the few mentions in the Bible, apocryphal texts, the rabbinic tradition, and further expansion from Christian and secular sources.

The only instance of Satan as a name (the word “satan” in the Hebrew language means adversary, and as such appears as a generic noun in other places) in the Hebrew Bible appears in 1 Chronicles 21:1, “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” This census of the Israelites displeases God and he sends a pestilence that kills 70,000 Israelites, however as a result of this, God reveals to David where to build the temple in Jerusalem. Satan is not mentioned again in the narrative, nor in the rest of Chronicles. There is also no explanation for why Satan incited David. It is also interesting to note that 2 Samuel 24:1 recounts the same story, but begins with, “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.'” The Society of Biblical literature notes that in this passage, “the anger of the Lord” seems to function as a separate entity from the Lord himself. It appears that both authors do not want to overtly accuse the deity of inciting the Israelites against him through his own command. In the case of Chronicles, the author achieves this disassociation by attributing the action a being entirely separate from God.

Satan next appears in the opening chapters of the Book of Job, commonly regarded as a folktale or parable in modern times, rather than a strict history. The book begins with the heavenly beings gathered before the Lord, Satan among them. Satan claims that he has been roving around the Earth. The Society of Biblical literature postulates that in this instance, Satan functions as the Lord's spy on Earth, why an all powerful deity needs a spy is not addressed in the text, nor the commentary. (In this instance, the word “satan” is preceded with a “the” in the Hebrew, implying that “The Satan” is some sort of official in God's cabinet). God then asks Satan if he has encountered Job. (In an interesting similarity to Satan, Job can also mean enemy in Hebrew). God claims that Job is the most upright and blameless man on Earth. Satan claims that Job is only righteous because God has never given him a reason to rebel. In response to this, “The Lord said to Satan, 'Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!'” (Job 1:12). After which, Satan proceeds to destroy all of Job's possessions and kill his family. Job refuses to question God because of his misfortune so Satan once again appears before the Lord and says, “Skin for skin, All that people have they will give to save their lives. But stretch out your hand now and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” (Job 2:7). This marks Satan's last appearance in Job. The story continues with Job suffering more and more before the Lord himself finally addresses Job with a slew of rhetorical questions asserting his complete dominion over the universe and the foolishness of man to question him.

When viewed as parable, the Satan character is ancillary in Job to the central message of God's dominion, however, when interpreted as a literal history of a man named Job and an account of an encounter with God and Satan, Job gives us many of the qualities of Satan that have persisted into the current popular conception. This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible of Satan functioning explicitly as unique being. He has a personality separate and distinct from God. He appears to interact (or has interacted at one time) regularly with God. He is also able to freely roam the Earth, and, with God's permission, can supernaturally bring about destruction. The most important development from this conception of Satan is that he has been established as wholly distinct from God. This allows later storytellers to give him attributes that would be profane to ascribe to God. This passage also provides us with a basis for the idea of Satan as the tempter, although here, he does not tempt one to do any and every kind of sin, his goal is to make Job turn his back on the Lord. It's also interesting that he doesn't function as a kind of “the devil made me do it” personification of man's inner struggle. He merely destroys until someone gives up hope.

The last appearance of (the) Satan in the Hebrew Bible is in Zechariah 3. Here, Zechariah sees the high priest Joshua in a vision standing before an angel, with Satan to the right of him. “And the Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not his man a brand plucked from the fire?'” (Zechariah 3:2-3). The passage continues, without Satan appearing again, with the angel telling Joshua that one day the Lord of Hosts will remove the sins of the land in a single day. This passage has been appropriated by Christians as a prophetic vision of Jesus taking away man's sin and it is possible that the juxtaposition of this messianic prophecy and the rebuke of Satan could lead interpreters to associate the two, although this is not explicit in the text. More concretely, the image of Joshua with an angel and Satan on either side of him seems to persist in popular culture with the trope of “the devil on my shoulder.”