My Response to the Rob Bell Controversy

Thursday, April 7, 2011


I have of course not written on this blog for a month. Instead, I have written about my experience with cancer on my Johns Family blog. You are welcome to go there to read my journal on the experience. A link appears in the column to the right. Needless to say, the surgery has proven a greater hindrance to writing than I imagined.

This week I received a note from a friend in the Pacific Northwest asking my opinion of the current Rob Bell controversy. He asked if I thought Bell represented the fruition of reason run amuck. I responded with the following (quickly constructed and unedited) comments.

I deeply appreciate your question and way you phrased it. I do not believe that reason inevitably leads to chaos. In my opinion, it is not reason that is at fault in post-modernity; it is the set of a priori assumptions to which reason is being applied. Postmodern thought builds on two faulty premises, one long-standing and the other only recently re-introduced. The longstanding error is belief that truth can be known in a vacuum. That is, the Hellenistic worldview assumes there always exists a gap between the knower and the known. Grounded in dualism, this myth ultimately removes truth from the material world, and makes reason the sole arbiter of truth, which in turn limits knowledge to the individual’s ability to reason. Knowledge and truth, while universal in essence, are always private in experience; only the individual can know that he or she knows.


The second faulty assumption is new to the “modern” world. It is a rejection of the longstanding belief that creation is a closed system. Twentieth century physics replaced the certainty of Newton’s Laws with the uncertainty of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which lead to thoughts of alternative time-lines, the collapse of space into time, and multiple dimensions of existence. The material world has an infinite number of possible expressions. And if that is true, then how diverse must spiritual truth be?


I realize I am painting in very broad strokes but it seems to me that post modernity boils down to the union of these two presuppositions, (1) truth can only be known by the individual, and (2) all truth is relative. When these two are brought together the results are the deification of the individual and the nullification of absolute truth (Adam and Eve all over again).


For me the answer lies in a more Biblical epistemology, one that understands all knowledge and truth as (1) being grounded in the Triune God, (2) relational in character (always personal/never private), (3) always constant, consistent, and therefore rational, but (4) also trans-rational [truth cannot be confined to reason alone making reason to not be the sole arbiter of truth].


I have not read Bell’s latest book. Therefore, I cannot comment on his specific views. The reviews I have read suggest he is merely lost in the relativity/uncertainty of post-modernity. The strength of his approach seems to be his willingness to look at hard questions thru the lens of the cultural realities of his generation. The weakness of his approach seems to be an unwillingness to accept and teach with certainty the Biblical answers to those questions.


I have probably strayed too far from your original question. In short, the problem with post-modernity is its predisposition to limit reason to the role of being a tool used to defend truth as a private matter (reason as justification for my brand of truth). To borrow a phrase from Francis Schaffer, post-modernity represents the Western World’s “escape from reason.” I don’t think Bell offers a valid model for reaching a post-modern world. He, and others in the emergent church, are correct in their assertion that it is not enough to ask the right questions with this rising generation; we must understand their epistemology which defines truth as that which is “real” rather than that which is “logical.” They are wrong in that they fail to honor the Word of God incarnated and the Word of God inscripturated as being both personal and objective (present in time and space). We, as Pentecostals, should be providing the answer for post-moderns, truth is found in the person of Jesus who is both real and logical. He is known through encounter and understood through reason.

The Elephant in the Room

I have been sidetracked from writing for the past several weeks by a health issue. I plan to post about that on my Family Blog on Sunday. What follows here is a draft of a section of the introduction to a book on Bible study on which I am working. The book is currently being called Encountering God in the Scriptures: Inductive Bible Study for a New Generation. Constructive feedback will be appreciated.

The Elephant in the Room

In 1970 James Smart, a leading Presbyterian scholar, wrote about The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church. He was writing against a liberal theology which had combined with a progressive philosophy to produce the “social gospel.” Many of the leading churches had concluded the Bible simply wasn’t relevant for modern times; it was at best a record of how people long ago had sought to understand their world and the God who may have created it.

It is now four decades since Smart wrote to challenge the church to return to the Bible as a God-given book worthy of dedicated study. Yet, instead of being resolved, the problem of neglect for the Holy Scriptures has expanded into much of the Christian world, especially in the more developed nations. Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Charismatics, who were once known as “people of the Book,” are now woefully ignorant of the ancient texts. We live in a time when the Bible is cherished as an artifact and ignored as a revelation. For many it has become the proverbial “elephant in the room;” a presence too great to be removed and too mysterious to be explored.

All too often we are like the blind men of the ancient Indian proverb. Having never seen an elephant they were led to an old and gentle mare where they were stationed around it. Each was asked to describe the animal they were feeling for the first time. The one at the head spoke up quickly with a tone of fear as he pushed away the trunk, “it is a giant serpent.” At the opposite end his friend stood curling the tail around his hand and replied, “you silly man, it is no serpent; it is something we can use. It is a rope.” Another clung to a giant leg and announced “It is no serpent or rope; it is a tree under which we can take shelter.” The one at the side of the beast exclaimed “No! no! no! It is a wall. Behind it we will be protected.” Finally, the one being cooled by the flapping of the elephant’s ears added, “I know what it is; an elephant is a fan.”

If we were to expand the parable we might imagine how those who cannot hear experience the elephant. How would the experience of those who cannot smell be different from our own? How do people who only see elephants at the zoo or a circus experience them differently than the scientist who studies them, or the person who trains them to perform, or the person who uses them in the jungles as a means of transportation or a beast of burden? At the risk of overreach in our exploration of the parable, how would we experience the elephant in the room if it was wild and untamed, a beast that refused to be controlled? If we are to truly know the elephant we must realize it is more than the sum of its parts. It is a living and dynamic creature. We must also recognize our experiences with it, even our combined experiences, are inadequate to completely know it.

If we begin to experience the elephant from all of these vantage points, our understanding of the elephant would expand as would our questions about elephants. Just how big do elephants get? How long do they live? How strong are they? What noises do they make? What do they smell like? What do they eat? Where do they live? How do you train an elephant to stand on its hind legs?

Like the blind men most of us connect with only portions of the Bible. There are passages we like and others we hurry through or skip over. If we are not careful we will limit the Word of God to the role we want it to play in our lives. For some the Bible is to be revered but not explored; it is too awesome and demanding to be engaged. Others know it only as a textbook to be studied for its practical applications. Others cling to its presence, if not its content, as a shelter from the storms of life. Still others find in it a wall behind which to hide from the dangers of life. Still others get just close enough to be cooled by the freshness of its presence.

God is present in His Word. The Bible is far more than a record of how people sought to know God, or even how people once experienced God. The Scriptures are the voice of God echoing through the ages, the Word of God carried by the Holy Spirit to every generation, the presence of God making Him known to all who would attend to it.

Bible study should aim at knowing God and His purposes for our lives. It is a spiritual process. But Bible study should also be a reasoned and disciplined process. If the Bible is infinite and eternal as the voice of God, it is also historical and temporal. It is both a divine book and a human book. God’s Word inscripturated foreshadowed the mystery of God’s Word incarnate. In Christ God has become flesh; in the Bible God’s word has become human language.

Another Dream

I had planned to write something on the "State of the Union" address, but it is the first week of classes.

I have had some interesting dreams.  Two nights ago it was two slap-stick comedies.  I awoke from both chuckling.  That was unusual.

Last night I had a much more philosophic/theological dream.  In the dream Cheryl and I were sitting at the table with a bunch of scholars.  Some of us were discussing ecclesiology.  I made a few comments about the ecclesiology of the early leaders of the Church of God and my long-standing theory they were influenced by the publication of Donaldson's Ante-Nicene Fathers.

My good friend Dale Coulter was at the other end of the table. (Dale Teaches at Regent University and use to be a member of New Covenant.  I love and respect him and his wife greatly.  He has published an article on early Church of God ecclesiology.)  Suddenly I heard Dale speak up in his not uncommon, prophetic stacatto, the one where his volume and tone rise slightly, "If Heaven was to come down right now and I could go, I wouldn't if God wasn't there.  Enduring all that glory for eternity without His presence would be torture."

Now that's a dream to meditate on.  Dale, what are your thoughts?

Consider Creation

Consider Now Creation
In Its Whole and In Each Part
Every photon, neuron, and function
God Revealed in His Art.

His glory is painted on the horizons
His Beauty adorns each Flower,
His Majesty Engulfs the Heavens
The Eternal within Every Hour

All Creatures by Him Adorned
Each Kissed by the Breath of God,
Humans Alone in His Image Formed
The Creator Impressed on Sod

Each Day a Work of Art
Shaped by the Finger of God,
Each Moment a Monument
To His Creative Power

For this reason you were freed
His glory to proclaim
In Word and Thought and Deed
Announcing Salvation in His Name

JDJ
January 13, 2011

Cards of Gratitude

Believe it or not I am up to date on my project to send a card expressing gratitude to a different person each day in 2011.  I have discovered: (1) designing the cards using photos I have taken is easier that writing cards, (2) writing cards from the heart is difficult and time consuming, almost as much as writing a daily blog -- ideas come easier than expressed affections, (3) expressing affections is difficult because that requires sincerity/truth and it has to connect with the recipient -- I struggle to express feelings; my language of love is action, (4) cards are difficult because they have to be concise -- context, affections, examples in three to five sentences.

I have discovered great joy in this discipline.  It is wonderful to remember persons who have blessed me over my lifetime and to communicate words of gratitude.  I have also found myself praying for each person/couple and this may be the greater purpose of this exercise. 

One other dimension of this discipline is that it is private.  My series on thankfulness was public declaration.  Cards are private.  I recognize they are primarily a self-revelation but they are also a statement about the other person and a statement about our relationship.  There is in this an implied commitment and openness to response.  I did not anticipate this latter condition, i.e., I did not expect to hear back from anyone.  Several persons have sent messages of appreciation for my card.  Most have not.  While not expected, acknowledgement of receipt of the notes is most gratifying.

On A Work-break
1-25-11 at 11:00 A.M.

Thank You Mr. President

President Obama,

Thank you for your address at the memorial service in Arizona.  You were compassionate, insightful, and instructive.  You did what you espoused and rose above politics to address us all as the great American family.

Troubled by Current Political Opportunism

Our nation is responding to the senseless murders in Arizona this week. In the coming weeks we will discover more about Jared Loughner, the twenty two year old shooter, than anyone needs to know. He was clearly a deeply troubled, if not mentally ill (Okay, obviously mentally ill) individual.


I am on the record as being critical of current political speech especially by TV and radio personalities as polarizing and counterproductive. There seem to be more conservative pundits with incendiary speech than liberals but the liberals are just as viral if more polished and entertaining.

In this crisis, I am troubled by the political opportunism demonstrated by some on the left. I have seen and read numerous commentaries associating this event with the political right. There is no evidence thus far to link this young shooter to conservatism in general or Sarah Palin in particular. There is no justification for linking him in any way to contemporary political debate. His reported political influences include Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Given the fact that Representative Giffods was Jewish, this influence suggests a plausible theory for his acts of violence to be racism. I suspect however that time will reveal this to be the result of paranoid schizophrenia with a focus on mistrust of authority/political figures and not a cogent political statement.

Further, there is no evidence that I am aware of suggesting rhetorical images of physical struggle or even those of hunting or military conflict (“lock and load”) contribute to political assassinations. Political speech of all stripes has always been peppered with images of physical struggle. I suspect acts of violence against public figures are grounded more in fear (a primary emotion and one at the heart of paranoia) than anger (a secondary emotion).

I don’t recall anybody blaming members of the political left when John Hinkley, Jr. shot Ronald Reagan. If this most recent act of violence was in any way attributable to current political divisions in our nation (and I think not) then both sides are to blame for it is unreasoned evocative blame that is at the heart of the problem. The left blames the right for all of our social ills and the right blames the left for our loss of freedoms. If there is hysteria in our society it is fueled by unreasoned blame and personal attacks and these flow out of arrogance and fear.

It is a natural response to look for answers to questions thrust upon us by violence. It further seems nearly automatic to look or someone to blame when tragedy occurs. Unfortunately, periods of emotional stress leave us ill prepared for clarity of thought and appropriate response. All too often our reactions serve only to solidify our ideological positions and emphasize our social divisions.

In short, I find the current attempt by some to blame the conservatives an expression of the problem. Unreasoned blame of social/political movements and/or persons intensifies and solidifies emotional divisions. To express this type of blame in a time like this is nothing short of political opportunism and I find that very troubling.

There are many things we might legitimately debate in the wake of this tragedy. I would suggest the two most obvious are our nation’s approach to the treatment of mental illness and the control of handguns, and the interplay between these two issues. Yet, even these issues should not be acted upon in the current emotional environment. It is a time to grieve, to comfort, and to pray.

Cleveland,
January 10, 2011
JDJ