Rob Bell. Some might call him a heretic, and some might say he's the poster child for the 21st century Christian church as it tries to be relevant in today's culture. This is not a comprehensive review as I'm sure those can be found elsewhere, and while I took many notes on portions where I thought he made a great point and others where I thought he was flat out wrong or misleading, I'm not going to do a fact-checking list on his book, Velvet Elvis. Rather, I'd like to first give him some credit in his good points and then move onto what I think are his problems on a philosophical level.
First off, Rob Bell criticizes the Christian church. But I was relieved to see he does not bash it the way I see many people (even Christians) do. He points out honest problems that have emerged such as the health and wealth teachings that we see (he writes towards the end that the Christian life often makes your life harder—a very true statement). Bell sees people disenfranchised with the contemporary evangelical church and wants to reach out to them. He also criticizes churches that are not at all receptive to honest questions from their members, making doubt into some sort of unspeakable sin. Bell argues how church should be a safe place to ask questions, especially because believers are constantly beset with questions about sin, pain, the culture around them and how God can ask us to do this and that. Bell goes on to discuss other ways of making people personally invested in God and the church, and I think that is part of his driving passion here: He wants people to not get bogged down with problems in the church that come about because of sinful people inside, and in those sections of the book (while I don't agree with him 100%) he has some fair criticisms of problems the church faces.
However, I cannot recommend the book mainly because Bell does not provide good solutions. As a firefighter, I can appreciate an officer who gives an accurate assessment of where the fire is, but he must also have a sound attack plan. Bell's solutions have four main problems. First, he makes firm, objective truth unattainable and leaves the audience with an epistemological skepticism. He talks about how Christianity raises many questions (which is true enough) but does not point out how it also gives real answers to much of life's hardest questions, questions of meaning, purpose, humanity, etc. He says that Christianity "is a lot of paradoxes. And we cannot resolve a paradox. We have to leave it as it is. Being a Christian is more about celebrating mystery than conquering it." Now, I do not identify myself by what I'm against. Can we know everything about Christianity? Not in this life. And I'm glad Bell is at peace with not figuring out every question under the sun, but I find it sad that he does not realize what he has in front of him, that Christianity gives so many firm answers so that believers do not have to live in paradoxes. We can make sense of a seemingly incoherent world via a coherent framework.
Second, Bell neglects the objective truth for the sake of personal experience (existentialism came to my mind). In the chapter where he talks about such a wonderful church he found, he spotlights what a fulfilling experience it was, never once mentioning the orthodoxy of the teaching and whether Truth was taught. Are fulfilling experiences bad? No, but truth has more to it than a fulfilling experience. One need only read Jeremiah or Job to see that wrestling with the truth does not always leave one fulfilled.
Third, he often loses the focus of what's really going on. He says at one point that "Hell is full of forgiven people." Is he talking about eternal damnation? No, he's talking about this life and how we live. Now, I agree that we get glimpses of Heaven and Hell in this life. Unfortunately, when Jesus spoke of Heaven and Hell, he spoke of the afterlife. We do not exist for this world, but Bell teaches that Jesus came to bring the Kingdom of Heaven here to this world we are in. Again, the gospel has a powerful impact on this world, but it's nothing compared to what we will see in the next. Bell cites poverty as part of the Hell in this world, but Christ tells us we will always have poverty in this world; the Gospel saves us for the next. Bell says it upsets him when believers talk about the Hell of the next life more than in this. He gives very little evidence to dissuade me from believing that was precisely what Jesus referred to. Bell does not seem to understand where real focuses are. In one portion, he asks "What if X and Y about historical Christianity were proven false?", then proceeding to say it wouldn't matter so much. He equates 6-day creationism with the virgin birth (something I would never do), and I wonder how he would respond if I were to ask him to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials.
And this leads me to my final grief with Bell (and also what allows me to be most generous to him). He constantly uses sloppy language and sloppy writing. He does very little to differentiate between Jesus's use of "Hell" referring to this life or the next. He'll use phrases like, "God accepts us just the way we are." Really? So God sees no need to change us to make us more like him? I get what he's saying in that God will redeem sinners no matter the evils they've committed so long as they repent, but such word choice is problematic. He'll say that truth is bigger than Christianity and leaves us with a catch-phrase when I wanted to hear more. My guess is this, that if I sat down with him and discussed that statement, that we would find we both agree that Christians must have a whole worldview that extends beyond the narratives told in the Gospels, that the crucifixion and resurrection is the core but not all that Christianity is. But statements like that leave me confused as to the author's intention, and I wonder how many people have gotten the message of open theism from him because of a book filled with such comments.
For these reasons, I cannot recommend his book as a good example of how to look at Christianity. Yes there is some good material there, but I found too many problems to make me at ease. Now, because this book is so well read, I think it could serve some well to read it and to consider each passage in it. I would give two cautions. 1st, read carefully. 2nd, do not define yourself by what you are against; identify yourself by what you are for. Bell makes a good point about this too. Do not look at all he says and decide that you disagree with all of it because he makes some very true points here and there. Bell has overreacted against some problems in the Church; we would be remiss to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment