Hmm...
itunes: Casino Queen from the album "Wilco_7/03/03_Summerfest Milwaukee_D2" by Wilco
reading:"Velvet Elvis" (Rob Bell)
I'm borrowing Rob Bell's new book "Velvet Elvis" from a friend, who didn't really like it and I'm not very far into it, but I wanted to throw out a quote and let you guys devour it. Caution: I know I have friends on the (hate to say the word) "emerging" side of things, and those coming from a more "non-emerging" view. So, that means, no comment yet for me (plus, I have a lot more reading to go.) But tell me what you think of this (I understand I am not giving you much context):
"And as part of this tradition, I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy to follow steps. I mean theology, the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived and explained."
posted by Dan Price @ 9:25 AM
30 Comments:
I'm slightly troubled by this, although I can't take much meaning out of it with this little context. I'm not exactly down with an "ever-reforming theology," if that's really what he means.
Ok, I'll add just a bit of context. Bell is arguing that the Reformers (Luther, Calvin et. al.) used the word "reforming" not "reformed" becuase they knew that their views on faith would have to be rethought and reworked. Hope that helps.
Any more takers?
(wusses)
Dan, a few things. I think that I would agree with Bell, though it is a bit disconcerting. I think that as the world changes (and I am thinking over a large timeline, not in terms of years/decades) our theology needs to be reworked, we need to understand our core commitments in ways that make sense in our context. Certainly we take our cues from those who have gone before us, and even more certainly, we base things on Scripture. But when all is said and done, the theology of Augustine, Calvin or Edwards still only help me so much. The world they wrote for and existed in was so fundamentally different from mine that we need new theology to come to grips with what it means to follow Christ today. Like I said though, it isn't like we are making things up, we are still basing things on Scripture and taking our cues from the wise men and women that have gone before us. I feel this tension actually. I think about my existence and the many things that make our situation different from any of the Christians who have gone before me. Our global awareness, our consumer based society, crazy information technology, scientific developments (DNA stuff, etc), and on and on, tons of things that Christians have only begun to understand theologically. The world has changed very fast and Christians haven't done such a great job of re-evaluating their understanding of their place in it as changes have occurred. This is a scary thing for our identity to be so up in the air, but I think it is an honest appraisal of where we are and what we need to do. The one thing that bothers me about the "emerging" church rhetoric is that they seem to think they are better, that their new theology or their new formats, or whatever, is better than what has come before them. Like there is some sort of evolution of Christianity going on. I don't agree with that. The only way it is better is if it fits today's world better than the old ways/ideas fit today. But that doesn't make it better than how the old ways/ideas fit the old days. Does that make sense? Does any of what I say make sense? What do you think??
I just read Noel's blog entries from a couple days ago and from today, and I think I understand a bit more what Rob is saying. I get a little uneasy when I hear about changing theology...it makes me think they're saying, "Well, maybe Jesus ISN'T the only way, that's just the midieval/enlightenment/modern way they interpreted it." That's why parts of McLaren's A New Kind of Christian bothered me, because at times it really feels like he's saying that all things that we've come to accept as objective truth are pliable. I think there HAS to be a place for certain things to be TRUE. Certainly there are things that we accept as true simply because we are 21st century American evangelicals, and those things might be bunk. But I don't think they all are. When Rob says, "We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined," it sounds to me a lot like changing for changing's sake. Or like Noel has mentioned, blowing in the winds of culture. While I think he speaks a level of truth, I also think that his words could be taken too far. Whether he's taking them to the place I consider "too far," I don't know, I guess I'll have to read the book.
I also think that in our current post-modern era, we are far too quick to discard ideas from people like Luther, Calvin, Augustine, etc. We tend to think that just because those people lived 500 years ago, that their words have no bearing on my life now. I think that's a dangerous assumption to make, and more often than not a false one. Does a change in culture really have THAT great an impact on theology? I don't know...but I tend to lean more to saying no than saying yes. That probably makes me horribly "non-emergent," doesn't it?
i love this kind of discussion!
Joel- I can completely sympathize with your concerns about truth. If we lose our concern for things that are genuinely true we're screwed. I don't think Bell, or McLaren for that matter, want to say that truth is up for grabs. I think they push us (and probably overstate what they really believe in order to do this) to not be so dogmatic and certain about things. To view our lives as Christ-followers as more of a journey, as more messy. But back to the theology stuff, Bell said "We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined." I am not sure if the way I am going to explain this is what he had in mind, but it makes sense to me. A definition is more or less a description of something that lets people know what it is. If you change the definition the actual thing that is being defined is not changed, right? Take a dog for example. "a common housepet with four legs," "man's best friend," "canis familiaris," are all definitions of dog. Each point to the same true reality, but in different ways. This is kind of an exaggerated example, but it is similar with theology. The "good news" is this wonderful, multi-faceted reality that our theology cannot ever fully explore, can never fully define. So we need to keep "redefining" the same reality in ways that make the most sense in our current context. And as long as we are still basing our theology on Scripture, then we're safe. With that said though, I totally agree with you about Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc. What I said before may have been misleading, I really appreciate these giants that have gone before me and they guide my understanding like crazy. I just find that a lot of things that weigh heavy on my heart are things that weren't around for these guys to write about (for instance the AIDS crisis in Africa and how I respond to that as someone who kind of feels called to be some sort of pastor person in the US). They help me with these things, but then I need to do some of my own theologizing to bring things up to date.
Dan,
Here's a couple of thoughts:
1) Read my post on Noel's site:
http://www.noelheikkinen.com/blog_archives/001422.php
I need to give Rob the benefit of the doubt until I read his book, but I have serious reservations about his doctrine if this is a genuine representation of his philosophy of hermeneutics.
2) I don't have a problem with rethinking and reworking our understanding of doctrine, both individually and corporately. As we mature as Christians, our understanding of doctrine ought to change and mature as well. And we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to the innumerable theologians over the last two millenia who have helped to crystalize the different doctrines of the Bible. We truly are standing upon the shoulders of giants of the faith. And the church will hopefully continue to do that into her future.
3) But unchecked growth can produce doctrines that are "cancer", just as unchecked cellular growth produces a tumor. Read early church history--one branch of "rethinking and reforming" doctrine resulted in a blight called Gnosticism. The Church had to deal with Arianism, Modalism, the Ebionites, etc.--all dangerous and heretical movements that were correctly condemned. Does Rob suggest how he intends to be involved in "continual reformation" without falling into heresy? If not, then maybe he needs to clarify that.
I guess it comes down to understanding what he means. If "continual reformation" means a sharpening and clarifying of what the Scriptures teach, then that's biblical. If it means a rethinking of doctrine that is just for the sake of change and results in a twisting and distorting of biblical truth, then obviously it's unbiblical.
Chuck
Dan, I would have to say that i'm excited about being able to take part in a discussion like this. i love this stuff. but about the topic at hand, it makes total sense that the way the Christian faith is lived, explained, and defined needs to be continuously changed. Clearly, others have already stated many of the problems. It's just that today, we know so much more about mankind, scientifically, that we have all these problems that previous thinkers and even the scriptures have no clear answer for. For example, it is nearly proven that homosexuality is a purely genetic condition, which although does not condone homosexual behavior, clearly presents some new problems to the church. But what I think is most important, is that we need to understand the previous thinkers and our previous faith in general, look at the interests of our doctrines as they were specific to that time period and evaluate how that relates to ours. Notably, there have been times where interests have pervaded our doctrines enough to create heresy, but we cannot avoid including interests in our faith. What is necessary is to reflect on these interests, thus merging them with the truth. This is the kind of goal I think Rob Bell is striving for by studying our faith in a historical contex and accurately reforming that SAME faith in a correct context for today.
-Brad Hilgert
Brad,
You'll want to reconsider your statement "...it is nearly proven that homosexuality is a purely genetic condition", as this this most certainly NOT the case. I'm not sure who's been communicating what to you, but I can assure you that the exact opposite is true (and I say this not as a Christian, but as one with a background in molecular biology).
I know this wasn't the main point of your post, but it was made with such a confident assertion that I felt it appropriate to address it.
Best,
Chuck
It is odd that this topic has come up again, because I read the book about a month ago, posted it on the eriv site, and it created lots of discussion then too. I just have to say that from my experience, many christians are stale in their thinking. We grow up in christian homes (some of us) and go to church each week, but sometimes we forget that we don't have everything figured out. In fact, we probably have very little figured out. With this in mind, we can't stop questioning, pushing, digging for a true understanding of God, knowing all the while that we will never reach the end of our search. But, we must not become relaxed in our thinking about such issues. God is to beautiful, mysterious, and big for us to stop asking questions.
-Jeremy
Scott, you said,
"I just find that a lot of things that weigh heavy on my heart are things that weren't around for these guys to write about (for instance the AIDS crisis in Africa and how I respond to that as someone who kind of feels called to be some sort of pastor person in the US). They help me with these things, but then I need to do some of my own theologizing to bring things up to date."
I can appreciate that, and if that is the kind of "reforming" that Bell is discussing, then I'm on board. But what concerns me in this quote...
"I mean theology, the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived and explained."
...is the word salvation. I have no problem reforming or revising how I relate to others, what I need to do to impact the lost, how I present the gospel to reach people most effectively, etc. But it sounds like Rob wants to reform the doctrine of salvation, and I just don't know what that means. I think we should by all means be on a never-ending quest to better understand who God is, what He wants from us, and how we live out the message He has presented to us in the Bible. We should always be trying to delve deeper into what it means to be a follower of Christ. I just get concerned that some of Bell's rhetoric seems to be espousing reinventing the wheel continuously. There are things that change, but there are things that don't. Jesus is still the way, the truth, and the life. There are still things that the Bible calls sin. I just think that we have to make sure that any "new interpretation" lines up with the message that we've gained from people like Paul and John and Peter, and of course Jesus. I think the fact that the New Testament speaks SOOO much about false teachers and being wary of following a different gospel has to tell us something. Not to say that Rob Bell is a "false teacher," I just think, echoing what Chuck said, that heresy is always a possibility to be careful of when we're "reforming our theology."
I have to agree Joel, we need to keep studying in humility to find what God intends for us to know about himself. We don't change doctrine ourselves becuase of culture. We apply doctrine differently becuase of our culture and I guess that's where we figure out how to deal with things like the AIDS crisis. The doctine of love hasn't changed, but ways that we have applied it do.
this is a great discussion guys.
I like what you said Dan; the doctrine of X doesn't necessarily need to be revised, but how that doctrine plays itself out in our era and our society does (for instance the Great Commission; we don't need to revise the fact that we are to go and make disciples, but how we best make them is certainly a fluid concept). If this is Bell's point, then I rescind my troubled-ness; but I don't get that from the quote you posted.
Joel/Dan, I am torn. On one hand I totally agree with you. I like what you said Joel about staying true to the message of Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. Basically, staying true to Scripture. This is totally right on in my mind. As we reform Scripture needs to be our "norming norm." With Paul, we preach Christ crucified and this must always be central. Similarly, Dan, I agree, loving God and neighbor must always be the greatest commandment. On the other hand, I am a bit uneasy with some of the language you guys used. Dan, you said that doctrine doesn't change, but how we apply it does. Joel, you said that we don't revise that we are to go and make disciples, but how we do that gets revised. I think this doesn't go far enough. It's just repackaging. Remember, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the first stuff. So, I agree, Jesus' command to make disciples does not change, the fact that we are supposed to be known as Jesus' followers by our love does not change. BUT, these things are not doctrine, they are Bible verses. Doctrine (or theology) is our understanding of these verses. And our understanding of these verses and their implications do change, in fact must change to remain relevant to our context. This may sound like we are on shifting sand, but that's not true, we are standing on Christ. If we think our understanding (our doctrine/theology) is all set, is complete and without error, THEN we are actually on shifting sand (at least in my opinion) because we are standing on our own understanding. I don't think we are being honest with ourselves when we pretend to be on a journey, pretend that our this life and our understanding is messy, and then we think we have our doctrine nailed down. At the end of the day though, I am not saying that much is up for grabs. It's still about Jesus and the cross. It's still about self-less love. It's still about the Spirit making us new. But I wanted to push you, because I think it is more than being open to rethinking how we apply these things, I think we need to be open to rethinking how we understand them as well (guided by the Spirit, Scripture and tradition). The alternative is thinking we understand them perfectly and I don't think any of us would claim that the Church does this. My perspective on all this isn't one of throwing everything out the window and redefining everything, it's one of gradually refining, one of taking every thought captive for Christ. Anyway, I am enjoying this and it's helping push my understanding :-)
Scott,
I don't think I disagree with you at all. I think it's a perspective thing. when i say that I don't believe the "doctrine" changes, that doesn't mean that my interpretions/thoughts on doctrine don't change. They do, because I'm human and full of error! I'm more talking about authority. I don't have the authority or power to change what God meant to give us in a way of message. Part of that, is that, knowing God is somewhat a mystery. Another part is that our different cultures/situations demand us to apply things in different ways. I do think this is kind of repackaging, but I don't see that as a bad thing. We only need to revise a doctrine if it's not right! Like I personally think that many fundamentalist's doctrine on the environment is "wrong" and that we should be caretakers of our enrivonment. This doesn't mean that the doctrine itself has changed, but I think people have taken God's command to go into the earth and subdue it, the wrong way.
I think that it's easy to take a passage and want it to fit into our own box (even though we all do it at times) and say well, "hell was something that the Jewish people believed in at the time of Jesus, he doesn't really mean that for today." I agree that our bias colors our interpretion, but I think we should try to understand that and try our best to interprete the passage knowing that. I think that some of McLaren's writing (just read Generous Orthodoxy) seems to move scripture, and authurship and intent to place below our bias and leanings. Mclaren, while I believe trying to be humble about his faith, actually seems to elevate himself above the message that God meant to give us (in some places).
The thing for me is that God tells us over and over to be convinced of our doctrine to watch for teachers who teach false gospels and doctrines. This seems to mean that we are "meant" to know and understand some of the things that God wants us to know.
what do you think?
Again thanks for pushing. It's good.
Scott, I think I'm in agreement with you for the most part. But I echo what Dan said (again): "We only need to revise a doctrine if it's not right!" There's no need to "reform" or "recontemplate" our doctrine on something like, say, the atoning power of Christ on the cross. I don't need to rethink that, because nothing has changed to make this notion obsolete, and nothing ever will. I'm still a sinner, and Christ's death still atoned for that sin. Maybe there are things that are worthy of rethinking (like Dan's example of the environment), but I don't think the major things are in need of revision. Here's another example: prayer. I struggled with this a lot this year, the concept of prayer and its value. It's worthwhile for me to grapple with this and form in my own mind what it means to pray to God for something or someone. It's even worthwhile to "ponder upon" the idea of being saved by grace. But I don't think that our pondering should lead us to the point where we say, "Well, maybe it's not just grace, but I have to do X and Y as well." Then I've veered off the path.
The thing that bothered me the most about Rob Bell's quote was that he threw salvation in there with the doctrines that needed to be reformed. I do not agree with this. Maybe what I'm thinking of was not exactly his intention, and I'll give him that benefit of the doubt since I haven't read his book; but it seems like a reckless thing to say.
I've read a lot from Rob Bell's teachings and seen all of his video teachings from his www.nooma.com series. My understanding is that when he is talking about "re-thinking salvation" he is talking about rethinking our approach to the topic. For example, in much of churchianity today salvation is seen as a "get out of hell free" card. There is so much emphasis on the end goal, the afterlife, that few place as much emphasis on kingdom living, in the here and now, as they should. The issue here is the misplaced emphasis.
In my church they had an end of year recap where they talked about how many people were "won for the Lord" in the past year, over 400, yet the attendance had actually dropped! My point is this, the focus was getting another notch on our belt, not making another disciple that is equipped for the Kingdom life. I'm still ashamed of that meeting.
As far as rethinking doctrine we need to always be ready to admit that we don't have it all figured out. Christian leaders thought that the world was flat, and if you thought differently you must be a heretic. How about this: We all look to Martin Luther as a great example of a reformer, and he was, but even he didn't have it all figured out:
Luther wrote, "What shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews?...First, their synagogues should be set on fire...Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed...Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds...Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach anymore...Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews...Sixthly, they ought to be stopped from usury (charging interest on loans)...Seventhly, let the young and strong Jews and Jewesses be given the flail, the ax, the hoe, the spade, the distaff, and spindle, and let them earn their bread by the sweat of their noses...we ought to drive the rascally lazy bones out of our system...Therfore away with them..."
(from: Concerning the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther, reprinted in Frank Ephraim Talmage, ed., Disputation and Dialogue: readings in the Jewish-Christian Encounter. New York. Ktav/Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, 1975. pp. 34-36)
If the great reformer himself could have been so dead wrong about something that we see as so obviously wrong we need to always be open to rethinking the way we see things, and the way we do things.
grace and peace, jimmy
I should clarify that the Lutheran church has long since recanted their founding father's unfortunate remarks.
Luther also saild that John Huss was a "heretic to be burned" (just after he actually was burned) because Huss didn't believe in transubtantiation.
Dan, I'm interested to see where you stand on the whole transubstantiation thing. Some people say that it's no big deal but I seem to remember that there is a verse that specifically says not to "spill your seed". Just a thought.
anyway, I agree with JR about taking a listen to Rob Bell (free MP3 download every weekend from his church site), or better yet, watch him on video (www.nooma.com). If you see the fire in this guy's eyes, and his love for Jesus, and others, I think you may get a sense for where he's coming from.
Just so you know, I'm not making a judgement on Rob at all right now. Just that one paragraph from his book, but more to create discussion. One of my best friends is the director for the nooma videos and I've seen them all and like. I just listened to an mp3 and like.
Oh, and JR, Paul didn't even mention that you were in line to read it... ha...
Jimmy,
um. I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing. Luther believe that the bread and the wine of the Lord's supper turned into the real blood and body of Christ. John Huss didn't. I don't if you want my opinion on it.
Is that what you are talking about?
Also love "churchianity" good stuff.
cool. I was just joking around, like a play on words... transubstantiation=masturbation... spilling seed... get it?
Anyway, you know the director of the nooma videos? Could you find out for me what kind of cameras, lenses, and filters they use? I've tried emailing them a bunch of times and no one has been able to answer my question. I love the look that they get. I edit video a little bit and I'd love to know how they achieve that look.
I didn't get that you were being harsh or judgmental about Rob. I know you were just throwing it out there.
I'll try to find out about the lenses for you.
Now it's time to go masticate =)...
lunch time
Dan & Joel-
First, Dan, I think you are right, we pretty much agree. My confusion comes from how you are defining doctrine and since we agree I'm just going to push things a little more to keep sharpening us. Sometimes you seem to be referring to doctrine as something like "the one real true state of things," (e.g- "when i say that I don't believe the "doctrine" changes, that doesn't mean that my interpretions/thoughts on doctrine don't change"). I think doctrine is what we believe about that reality. Sometimes you talk about it like that ("We only need to revise a doctrine if it's not right!"). According to my definitions, doctrine would change, but the truth of reality doesn't- it just so happens that what I believe to be true about reality is always based on faith. Anyway, I am being particular, but you know me, the king of precision. Is that helpful?
Joel, I think we agree too. I am certainly not in favor of revising doctrine just for the sake of change. And salvation by grace alone is not something I am prepared to waiver on either. But for the fun of it I will push once more! You mentioned the atonement. Don't you think there is a better way to tell this generation about the work of Christ on the cross than to say: "You have broken God's commandments and are headed to hell, but Jesus died for those sins, His blood appeasing God's wrath so that you could have a relationship with Him?" I don't ask that because I think we should sugarcoat the gospel, I actually don't think we make it "offensive" enough (but that's another story). I also believe with all my heart that the only way I am made exceptable to God is through Jesus and His death on the cross. I just don't think the "wrathful God" and "pay the penalty for your sins" language sends the right message because it doesn't sound like good news to todays culture. So we seek to express the same unchanging truth in a way that resonates with the hearts of people today. That's what I mean by revising doctrine, who knows if that is what Bell has in mind. You can have the last word, thanks, this has been fun!
Scott, thanks for your defining. I again agree with you!
This comment thread got weird, fast.
Scott, we agree.
And I wasn't judging Rob either. I've seen a couple of the Nooma videos and thought they were fantastic. But JR, I would expect you of all people (oh semantics nazi) to be a little bit stirred by his particular choice of words in that quote.
Post a Comment
<< Home