Below is an excerpt from A.W. Tozer's book, The Root of the Righteous. The "Rutherford" Tozer refers to is the great Scottish Presbyterian theologian and author, Samuel Rutherford. Of his Letters, Spurgeon once said, "let the world know that Spurgeon held Rutherfurd's Letters to be the nearest thing to inspiration which can be found in all the writings of men... none penetrated further into the innermost heart of holy fellowship with Jesus." Enjoy!
It was the enraptured Rutherford who could shout in the midst of serious and painful trials, “Praise God for the hammer, the file and the furnace.”
The hammer is a useful tool, but the nail, if it had feeling and intelligence, could present another side of the story. For the nail knows the hammer only as an opponent, a brutal, merciless enemy who lives to pound it into submission, to beat it down out of sight and clinch it into place. That is the nail’s view of the hammer, and it is accurate except for one thing: The nail forgets that both it and the hammer are servants of the same workman. Let the nail but remember that the hammer is held by the workman and all resentment toward it will disappear. The carpenter decides whose head shall be beaten next and what hammer shall be used in the beating. That is his sovereign right. When the nail has surrendered to the will of the workman and has gotten a little glimpse of his benign plans for its future it will yield to the hammer without complaint.
The file is more painful still, for its business is to bite into the soft metal, scraping and eating away the edges till it has shaped the metal to its will. Yet the file has, in truth, no real will in the matter but serves another master as the metal does also. It is the master and not the file that decides how much shall be eaten away, what shape the metal shall take, and how long the painful filing shall continue. Let the metal accept the will of the master and it will not try to dictate when or how it shall be filed.
As for the furnace, it is the worst of all. Ruthless and savage, it leaps at every combustible thing that enters it and never relaxes its fury till it has reduced it all to shapeless ashes. All that refuses to burn is melted to a mass of helpless matter, without will or purpose of its own. When everything is melted that will melt and all is burned that will burn, then and not till then the furnace calms down and rests from its destructive fury.
With all this known to him, how could Rutherford find it in his heart to praise God for the hammer, the file and the furnace? The answer is simply that he loved the Master of the hammer, he adored the Workman who wielded the file, he worshiped the Lord who heated the furnace for the everlasting blessing of His children. He had felt the hammer till its rough beatings no longer hurt; he had endured the file till he had come actually to enjoy its bitings; he had walked with God in the furnace so long that it had become as his natural habitat. That does not overstate the facts. His letters reveal as much.
Such doctrine as this does not find much sympathy among Christians in these soft and carnal days. We tend to think of Christianity as a painless system by which we can escape the penalty of past sins and attain to heaven at last. The flaming desire to be rid of every unholy thing and to put on the likeness of Christ at any cost is not to be found among us. We expect to enter the everlasting kingdom of our Father and to sit down around the table with sages, saints and martyrs; and through the grace of God, maybe we shall; yes, maybe we shall. But for most of us it could prove at first an embarrassing experience. Ours might be the silence of the untried soldier in the presence of the battle-hardened heroes who have fought the fight and won the victory and who have scars to prove that they were present when the battle was joined.
The devil, things and people being what they are, it is necessary for God to use the hammer, the file and the furnace in His holy work of preparing a saint for true sainthood. It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until He has hurt him deeply.
Without doubt we of this generation have become too soft to scale great spiritual heights. Salvation has come to mean deliverance from unpleasant things. Our hymns and sermons create for us a religion of consolation and pleasantness. We overlook the place of the thorns, the cross and the blood. We ignore the function of the hammer and the file.
Strange as it may sound, it is yet true that much of the suffering we are called upon to endure on the highway of holiness is an inward suffering for which scarcely an external cause can be found. For our journey is an inward journey, and our real foes are invisible to the eyes of men. Attacks of darkness, of despondency, of acute self-depreciation may be endured without any change in our outward circumstances. Only the enemy and God and the hard-pressed Christian know what has taken place. The inward suffering has been great and a mighty work of purification has been accomplished, but the heart knoweth its own sorrow and no one else can share it. God has cleansed His child in the only way He can, circumstances being what they are. Thank God for the furnace.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Is faith a gift? Yes and No.
Is faith a gift? This is an important question for those interested in soteriology. To answer this question, we must begin by clarifying our terms.
First, "faith." What type of faith are we referring to? Some options are:
(a) saving faith - initial faith we place in Christ that results in our salvation.
(b) persevering faith - enduring faith that continues often in the midst of suffering.
(c) the spiritual gift of faith - the supernatural ability to trust God during hard times or for miracles.
(d) the Christian faith - the set of truths comprising the doctrines of the Christian religion.
(e) conscience - i.e. "I cannot do that in good faith."
There is often overlap between these different types of faith, but when we ask if faith is a gift, we are generally referring to definition (a), saving faith. Saving faith must have at least three components to qualify as genuine: (1) content - understanding the content of the Christian faith, (2) mental assent - the assent of the intellect to the propositional truths of the Christian faith, (3) trust - reliance upon God.
Second, let's consider what we mean by "gift." When we ask if faith is a gift, what we are really asking is whether the act of trusting is something that originates in God and is imparted to us, or whether it originates in us as a response to God. Of course, there are components of faith that certainly originate in God. For example our ability to have faith at all is ours because God created us in His image. The content of our faith is possible because God has accomplished salvation in Christ. But does the act of trusting originate in God or in us? This is what we mean when we ask, "Is faith a gift?". Let's examine the relevant biblical passages.
Ephesians 2:8 - "For by grace you are saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
This is perhaps the most popular biblical passage used to answer his question. This, it is argued, is a clear example of faith being called a "gift of God." However, when one examines the original Greek, it becomes quite apparent that this is incorrect. The key to understanding this passage is the Greek demonstrative pronoun translating "this" (touto) in the phrase "this is not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." This word refers back to some antecedent. Possible options are
(1) "faith,"
(2) "grace,"
(3) the concept of grace-by-faith salvation,
(4) adverbial force with no antecedent.
The demonstrative pronoun touto ("this") is in the neuter gender, while chariti ("grace") and pisteoos ("faith") are in the feminine gender. Therefore it cannot refer to "grace" or "faith." The fourth option is that the word touto has an adverbial force with no antecedent. In this case, we would translate the demonstrative pronoun as "and especially." The third option, which I take to be the correct option, understands the antecedent of touto to be the concept of salvation. In conclusion, the first two options are ruled out by the rules of grammar, and so one of the latter options must be correct. In either of the latter options, faith is not the gift, and so we must conclude that this passage does not teach that faith is a gift. Rather salvation is a gift that is received through faith.
Hebrews 12:2 - "...looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith..."
If Jesus is the "author" of our faith, doesn't that mean that it originates in Him? Not according to this passage. Throughout Hebrews 11 there are numerous examples of people who were examples of great faith. These examples are used by the author to encourage his readers to persevere in their faith. When we come to Hebrews 12, the author moves from various examples to our Example par excellence: Jesus. The author of Hebrews chooses to use the metaphor of a race to depict how we are to live our lives as Christians. We are encouraged with the words, "let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith." The word translated "author" (arkegos) has a dual range of meaning, and can denote either a "ruler" or a "beginnner." Given the imagery of a race being used in this passage, the word is probably referring to Jesus as the pioneer of faith. In the "race" of the faith in God, Jesus is the One who made the race possible, and the first one to complete the race (which occurred on the cross). He is the forerunner who marked out the path of the race, and the champion who completed the race. This is what it means for Jesus to be the author and finisher of faith. And so this passage does not teach that our individual trust originates in God. Rather, this passage teaches that Jesus is the Original and Ultimate Example of One who placed His faith in God. Jesus is the Champion of the race we are to emulate.
Philippians 1:29 - "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake."
Because believing (or "faith" [pisteuein]) is said to be granted (or "graced" [echaristhe]), it is argued that this is an example of faith being a gift from God. I'd make two points about this passage:
(1) It seems that the "believing" referred to here does not refer to the initial conversion act of faith, but rather to continuing, enduring faith in the midst of suffering. It is not initial faith, but rather persevering faith. This is apparent from the historical context of the letter.
(2) The gift is not "believing" itself or "suffering" itself, but rather "believing in Christ," and "suffering for Christ." What makes the activity of believing/suffering gracious is not the activity itself, but rather the extreme worth of the object of that activity (i.e. Christ). And so you could translate the verse, "For to you has been granted the privilege on behalf of Christ not only to believe in him but also to suffer for his sake." This verse emphasizes Christ as the central object of worth--not belief or suffering.
So does this passage teach that faith is a gift? Not in the sense that faith originates in God. However, faith is a gift in the sense that we have a precious Savior in whom we are privileged to place our faith.
In conclusion, faith is not a gift in the sense that the act of trusting originates in God. Rather the act of trusting originates in us as a response to God. However, it is a deep honor and privilege to place our faith in so marvelous a Savior. Let's recognize the extreme worth of our Lord and be thankful for the privilege of being able to place our faith in Him.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Chuck Norris, True American Hero
I just came across this a website with Chuck Norris facts. Quite impressive. Here's some of the more interesting ones:1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the Earth down.
2. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
3. There is no chin under Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.
4. Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill.
5. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.
6. If you spell "Chuck Norris" in Scrabble, you win. Forever.
7. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
8. Chuck Norris once shot down a German fighter plane with his finger, by yelling, "Bang!"
9. Chuck Norris doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
10. Anytime someone is elected president in the United States, they must ask permission from Chuck Norris to live in the White House. The reason for this is because Chuck Norris has won every Federal, State, and Local election since 1777. He just allows others to run the country in his place.
11. Chuck Norris destroyed the periodic table, because Chuck Norris only recognizes the element of surprise.
12. In a fight between Batman and Darth Vader, the winner would be Chuck Norris.
13. Chuck Norris is suing Myspace for taking the name of what he calls everything around you.
14. The opening scene of the movie Saving Private Ryan is loosely based on games of dodgeball Chuck Norris played in second grade.
15. Remember the Soviet Union? They decided to quit after watching a DeltaForce marathon on Satellite TV.
16. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming "Law and Order" are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
17. Every time someone uses the word "intense," Chuck Norris always replies, "You know what else is intense?" followed by a roundhouse kick to the face.
18. Chuck Norris is so fast, he can run around the world and punch himself in the back of the head.
19. There are no steroids in baseball. Only players Chuck Norris has breathed on.
20. In fine print on the last page of The Guiness Book of World Records, it notes that all world records are held by Chuck Norris, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone else has ever gotten.
21. Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
22. Chuck Norris once kicked a horse in the chin. It's descendants are known today as Giraffes.
23. Chuck Norris has the greatest poker face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a joker, a Monopoly get-out-of-jail-free card, a two of clubs, a seven of spades, and a green #4 card from the game UNO.
24. Chuck Norris counted to infinity -- twice.
25. We live in an expanding universe. All of it is trying to get away from Chuck Norris.
For more, see this website: http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
A Winning Fight
"Christians are not perfect, just forgiven." I've seen this bumper sticker hundreds of times. If you see it, please rip it off. This is not the message we want to be sending. Christians are not just forgiven. We're forgiven and born to a radically new kind of life! We are much much more than "just forgiven."
What kind of fight is the Christian life? It is a winning fight. A victorious fight. A conquering fight.
God has given us His Spirit, and because His Spirit resides in us, we will see fruit in our lives. We will advance. We will make headway. We will progress. Fruit naturally grows on trees. It is the nature of an apple tree to produce apples. It is the nature of a believer in whom God's Spirit dwells to produce fruit. Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-Control. Fruit.
Why is it important to remember this? Because one of the greatest obstacles to growth is unbelief in the possibility of growth. We ought to see ourselves as people who will make genuine progress in our lives, so that in five years the sin that I used to battle with everyday is no longer a significant temptation. The addiction I felt is no longer enslaving me. The sinful attitudes I struggled with have been replaced with good fruit. The fight is a winning fight.
So Christians are not sinners who happen to be forgiven. Christians are forgiven, redeemed, Spirit-indwelt, new creation saints who happen to struggle with sin. Let me say that again! We are not sinners who happen to be forgiven. We are saints who happen to sin. Our primary identity--the core of who we are--has been radically changed. We are new creations (2 Cor 5:17)! This perspective on our identity and on the Christian life in general is a main staple of Pauline theology. The Christian life is a fight, to be sure (see my previous post), but it is a winning fight.
What kind of fight is the Christian life? It is a winning fight. A victorious fight. A conquering fight.
God has given us His Spirit, and because His Spirit resides in us, we will see fruit in our lives. We will advance. We will make headway. We will progress. Fruit naturally grows on trees. It is the nature of an apple tree to produce apples. It is the nature of a believer in whom God's Spirit dwells to produce fruit. Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-Control. Fruit.
Why is it important to remember this? Because one of the greatest obstacles to growth is unbelief in the possibility of growth. We ought to see ourselves as people who will make genuine progress in our lives, so that in five years the sin that I used to battle with everyday is no longer a significant temptation. The addiction I felt is no longer enslaving me. The sinful attitudes I struggled with have been replaced with good fruit. The fight is a winning fight.
So Christians are not sinners who happen to be forgiven. Christians are forgiven, redeemed, Spirit-indwelt, new creation saints who happen to struggle with sin. Let me say that again! We are not sinners who happen to be forgiven. We are saints who happen to sin. Our primary identity--the core of who we are--has been radically changed. We are new creations (2 Cor 5:17)! This perspective on our identity and on the Christian life in general is a main staple of Pauline theology. The Christian life is a fight, to be sure (see my previous post), but it is a winning fight.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Christian Life: Flawless or Fight?
The Christian life is not primarily a life of flawlessness--but a fight! A fight not of flesh and blood--but of faith. As Paul says, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Phil 3:12; see also 2 Cor 10:3-6; Eph 6:12; 1 Tim 6:12; 2 Tim 2:3-4, 4:7). The Christian life is a pressing on.
While I don't always agree with John Piper on doctrinal issues, he is a model of what a pastor ought to look like, and I would do well to imitate him. Below are a couple of powerful quotations from him.
While I don't always agree with John Piper on doctrinal issues, he is a model of what a pastor ought to look like, and I would do well to imitate him. Below are a couple of powerful quotations from him.
"The mark of a true Christian, and the mark of a church member in good standing, is not perfection, but the persistent fight of faith that recognizes sin as sin, confesses it, and turns from it in new resolves of holiness again and again." From this sermon.
"And this faith will fight anything that get's between it and Christ. The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. The mark of faith is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight anything that dims my sight of Jesus as my glorious Savior. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme Treasure of my life. Anything that stands between me and receiving Jesus faith fights—not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ." From this sermon.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Follow up on "Rabbi Jesus" in Velvet Elvis
The following is a follow-up on my previous post reviewing "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell. If you haven't read the previous post, I suggest you read this first.
In regards to Jesus' status as a rabbi, I should have been a bit more precise... Jesus is called "Rabbi" at several points in the gospels (see Mark 9:5; 1:21; 14:45; 10:51; John 20:16). There are numerous times also when Jesus is called the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew word "Rabbi" (epistata "master" and didaskalos "teacher"). However, the word "Rabbi" did not refer to a formally trained, ordained rabbi in the sense that Rob Bell indicates. It did not begin to take on this meaning until 70 AD. The New Testament scholar, Craig Evans states, "...prior to 70 CE the designation 'Rabbi' is informal, even vague, and lacks the later connotations of formal training and ordination, which obtain sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple..." (Craig Evans, "Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus," From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith, p. 42). Notice that in John 20:16, the word "Rabboni" is even defined for the reader--confirming that it was not a formally defined status: "She turned and said to him in Aramaic, 'Rabboni!' (which means Teacher)."
In 66 AD the Jews rebelled against the Romans, and eventually in 70 AD Jerusalem was besieged. This ended in 70 AD when the Romans captured Jerusalem, and obliterated the Temple. Judaism following the destruction of their temple and their capital took on a much different flavor than Judaism prior to AD 70. Prior to 70 AD Jewish worship centered around the Temple and the sacrifices performed there. Jerusalem was the center of Judaism. Post AD 70, Jews were scattered around the world and faced the need to redesign religious activities without the Temple. The Essenes, Sadducee's, and Zealots largely disappear from the scene and the Pharisaic movement leads the way forward in Judaism. During the siege, a teacher named Johanan ben Zakkai was smuggled out of the city in a coffin and secured permission from the Roman authorities to reestablish his academy at Jamnia. Johanan was of the school of Hillel and favored submission to Rome. This academy became the dominant rabbinic school following the destruction of Jerusalem because it was officially authorized by Rome to represent the Jewish people.
The academy at Jamnia marks the beginning of the change from a temple-oriented Judaism comprising a variety of sects to a more united Judaism centered around the local synagogues. It was at this point that "rabbinic Judaism" came into being where "Rabbi" was defined as an ordained appointment to an office that gave one judicial authority in interpreting the Jewish law. Interestingly, the council of Jamnia also recognized the Old Testament canon for the first time. Other things also changed in Judaism during this period. Everett Ferguson describes this period: "...the rabbis produced significant changes in Judaism: making the study of Torah a central act of piety incumbent on all male Jews, and developing prayer into a communal act of service to God. In the process, the rabbis elevated a new type of holy man -- the scholar replaced the priest as the religious leader. Although the result in the circumstances of the post-70 period was something new, the rabbis were drawing on elements in earlier Jewish tradition in fashioning 'rabbinic Judaism'" (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, p. 573). It was during this period that the Mishnah was written, which can be dated at about AD 200, and then around AD 500 the Gemara was written, which together form the Talmud. The mistake Bell makes is reading the Talmud and especially the Mishnah back into Jesus' times. But as Jimmy Dunn says, "...the portrayals of rabbinic Judaism in Mishnah and Talmud may not simply be projected backwards into the first century" (James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 90).
As you can see, the history is complex and I couldn't find an easily accessible source of info other than maybe wikipedia... You can check out a general book on NT backgrounds like the book I cited by Everret Ferguson, or maybe the one by James Jeffers called The Greco-Roman World in the New Testament Era. N.T. Wright's book, NT and the People of God is also helpful on this.... There are full-scale technical treatments of this issue by Lee Levine, and Jacob Neusner, and others... but they're big expensive books that are extremely technical. But this is the consensus view... there might be a couple of wacky scholars out there who disagree, but on a whole scholarship accepts the view I gave above.
In regards to Jesus' status as a rabbi, I should have been a bit more precise... Jesus is called "Rabbi" at several points in the gospels (see Mark 9:5; 1:21; 14:45; 10:51; John 20:16). There are numerous times also when Jesus is called the Greek equivalents of the Hebrew word "Rabbi" (epistata "master" and didaskalos "teacher"). However, the word "Rabbi" did not refer to a formally trained, ordained rabbi in the sense that Rob Bell indicates. It did not begin to take on this meaning until 70 AD. The New Testament scholar, Craig Evans states, "...prior to 70 CE the designation 'Rabbi' is informal, even vague, and lacks the later connotations of formal training and ordination, which obtain sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple..." (Craig Evans, "Jewish Scripture and the Literacy of Jesus," From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith, p. 42). Notice that in John 20:16, the word "Rabboni" is even defined for the reader--confirming that it was not a formally defined status: "She turned and said to him in Aramaic, 'Rabboni!' (which means Teacher)."
In 66 AD the Jews rebelled against the Romans, and eventually in 70 AD Jerusalem was besieged. This ended in 70 AD when the Romans captured Jerusalem, and obliterated the Temple. Judaism following the destruction of their temple and their capital took on a much different flavor than Judaism prior to AD 70. Prior to 70 AD Jewish worship centered around the Temple and the sacrifices performed there. Jerusalem was the center of Judaism. Post AD 70, Jews were scattered around the world and faced the need to redesign religious activities without the Temple. The Essenes, Sadducee's, and Zealots largely disappear from the scene and the Pharisaic movement leads the way forward in Judaism. During the siege, a teacher named Johanan ben Zakkai was smuggled out of the city in a coffin and secured permission from the Roman authorities to reestablish his academy at Jamnia. Johanan was of the school of Hillel and favored submission to Rome. This academy became the dominant rabbinic school following the destruction of Jerusalem because it was officially authorized by Rome to represent the Jewish people.
The academy at Jamnia marks the beginning of the change from a temple-oriented Judaism comprising a variety of sects to a more united Judaism centered around the local synagogues. It was at this point that "rabbinic Judaism" came into being where "Rabbi" was defined as an ordained appointment to an office that gave one judicial authority in interpreting the Jewish law. Interestingly, the council of Jamnia also recognized the Old Testament canon for the first time. Other things also changed in Judaism during this period. Everett Ferguson describes this period: "...the rabbis produced significant changes in Judaism: making the study of Torah a central act of piety incumbent on all male Jews, and developing prayer into a communal act of service to God. In the process, the rabbis elevated a new type of holy man -- the scholar replaced the priest as the religious leader. Although the result in the circumstances of the post-70 period was something new, the rabbis were drawing on elements in earlier Jewish tradition in fashioning 'rabbinic Judaism'" (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, p. 573). It was during this period that the Mishnah was written, which can be dated at about AD 200, and then around AD 500 the Gemara was written, which together form the Talmud. The mistake Bell makes is reading the Talmud and especially the Mishnah back into Jesus' times. But as Jimmy Dunn says, "...the portrayals of rabbinic Judaism in Mishnah and Talmud may not simply be projected backwards into the first century" (James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 90).
As you can see, the history is complex and I couldn't find an easily accessible source of info other than maybe wikipedia... You can check out a general book on NT backgrounds like the book I cited by Everret Ferguson, or maybe the one by James Jeffers called The Greco-Roman World in the New Testament Era. N.T. Wright's book, NT and the People of God is also helpful on this.... There are full-scale technical treatments of this issue by Lee Levine, and Jacob Neusner, and others... but they're big expensive books that are extremely technical. But this is the consensus view... there might be a couple of wacky scholars out there who disagree, but on a whole scholarship accepts the view I gave above.
Review of "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell
To begin with, I should say that Bell's writing style is very flowery. He uses a lot of pictures, metaphors, questions, and one-liners, so it's sometimes difficult to pin down exactly what he's saying. This is intentional, I'm sure, because Bell wants to communicate post-modern's; he's not attempting to write a theologically precise book.
I'll begin with what I liked about the book:
Bell does a good job of emphasizing that the church ought to function as a community. I think that in a lot of ways our individualistic culture has lost this aspect of the church. We ought to see our church as our family in a very real sense, and we ought to do life together in community. Bell emphasizes this, which is good. Along the same lines, he challenges our contemporary model of church where one person uses their gift of teaching and everyone else listens. If people go to a church meeting and just listen to a sermon and then go home, and this is the extent of their involvement, then I doubt biblically if this could count as being a member of that local body.
I thought Bell's emphasis on the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth is a needed corrective in our culture that tends to see God's kingdom as wholly in the future and somewhere else (in heaven). He does a good job of correcting eschatelogical naivetés by emphasizing that heaven will come to earth in the end. Also, I liked that Bell encouraged people to take a personal sabbath rest. This is much needed in our culture where busyness is seen as a virtue.
One area I particularly thought was good was Bell's treatment of sanctification (he didn't call it this). Bell states that we are not primarily identified as sinners, but as new creatures. He stresses that rather than focusing on sin management, we ought to focus on who we are in Christ, and then we will naturally begin to live as Jesus lived. This, I think, is a very powerful message and a much needed corrective. Along the same lines, he states that transformation in actions occurs when there is a genuine belief/trust in true reality--the reality that is described in the Bible. He ties this in with the idea that 'all truth is God's truth,' and the implications he draws from this for missions, evangelism, and other areas are good and useful.
Now I'll address the negative things about the book, which I'm sad to say, I think outweigh the positive things. I'll organize my thoughts under two headings: Philosophical issues, and exegetical issues.
A. Philosophical-Theological Issues
Bell begins by assuming that God cannot be described in human terms, so all our theology/doctrine are human constructs. This is a very dangerous false idea. It is true that we cannot capture all of who God is with language, but we can speak truly about God. In fact, you can't capture all of any person with language because persons are not static objects. In heaven, I will grow in my relationship with God more and more each day forever--even if I come to understand every Bible passage and theological doctrine with complete understanding--because God is a person. I will also continue to grow in knowing my wife, and every other Christian for all eternity. You can never fully know a person. However, just because I don't fully know my wife, doesn't mean that I don't know a whole lot about her. In the same way, although we may not be able to fully describe every aspect of who God is with language, we can describe Him truly. Dan was absolutely right without even reading the book. Bell is "conflating God's incomprehensibility with His ineffability." Bell also seems to draw a false dichotomy between knowledge and wonder. According to Bell, if you really knew God, then this leaves no room for wonder and awe about God. I would argue that the opposite is true. If you don't know God, then you will be without wonder and awe, and as you come to know Him and see Him as He truly is, you will grow in your wonder and awe of Him. God chose to inspire a book to teach us about Himself, and the words in that book give us true and accurate knowledge about God.
A second philosophical problem with the book is that Bell is relativistic. He seems to assume that all 'paintings' of Christianity are equally valid. According to Bell, the pre-reformation Catholic 'painting' is just different than the Reformer's 'painting.' But these two 'paintings' cannot be equally valid because they are diametrically opposed at important points. Furthermore, this idea is self-refuting because the idea that all 'paintings' of the Christian faith are equally valid, is itself a painting of the Christian faith. Is the 'painting' that says, "there is only one valid way to be a Christian" itself a valid 'painting' of the Christian faith? It seems to me that Bell has been unduly influenced by our culture's views about pluralism and tolerance. He seems to buy that in order to be tolerant, you have to accept other people's ideas as true. The real definition of tolerance is to allow someone to hold a different viewpoint even though you fundamentally disagree with them. Bell's relativism extends to two important areas: doctrine, and Scripture.
Doctrine
With reference to doctrine, Bell argues that we ought to see doctrine as the springs on a trampoline, that we jump on as we live in Christ. The springs are not the main point; they merely facilitate the main goal of "finding our lives in God." Now there is some truth to this analogy, but it is also very dangerous. If we don't like a doctrine or two, we can just take them off the trampoline and keep jumping. Here's Bell's take on the Trinity: "It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it. It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches" (22). And then again, here's Bell's take on the virgin birth: "What if that spring was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?" (26). Bell's unspoken conclusion seems to be that we could still be Christians without these fundamental doctrines; we could still keep jumping. But clearly we would consider someone who had rejected the Trinity and the Virgin Birth as being a non-Christian. You simply cannot throw out the core doctrines of the Christian faith and still call yourself a Christian. The idea of progressive revelation is that although a doctrine might be revealed over time, once that doctrine is revealed it is our obligation to believe it. People once did not believe in Jesus, but that's because Jesus had not been revealed. Now that he's been revealed, it is our obligation as Christians to believe in Him. The same goes for the Trinity and the virgin birth. If Bell wants to open up dialog to seriously discuss these doctrines, then that's great. But when he implies that we can do without them, that is unacceptable.
Scripture
Bell's relativism also extends to the interpretation of Scripture. Bell argues that the Bible has to be interpreted, a point with which very few people would disagree. But Bell goes further than this. He wants his readers to understand that they are entitled to interpret the Bible as much as anyone else (50). Furthermore, no one's interpretation is any better than anyone else's; they are all equally valid. He states, "When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their own opinions about the Bible" (54). Earlier he writes, "Everyone's interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. No one is objective" (53). Bell applies this principle asking why we worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? "At one point in church history, a group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday, but Sunday" (56). He goes on to ask why we do not sell all our possessions for the poor, or make women wear head coverings, or why do we say a wife's role is to submit to her husband? Bell answers, "This is because someone somewhere made a decision about those texts...Somebody in your history decided certain Bible verses still apply and others don't" (55-56). The effect of all this is making people feel bewildered at ever really understanding what the Bible says. It's true that every Christian can interpret the Bible for themselves (this is what we call the priesthood of believers), but the point is to get as close as possible to the author's original intended meaning, and some interpretations are flat out wrong, and some are better than others. Furthermore, although it's true that no one comes to the Bible without any pre-understandings, this does not mean that we cannot arrive at valid interpretations of a text. By being aware of our own biases and tendencies, and examining the context and flow of a passage, we can come to an accurate interpretation of a text.
B. Exegetical Issues
In addition to the philosophical problems in the book, there are numerous exegetical problems.
1. Jesus is not a rabbi as Bell indicates. Bell seems to read the Talmud and Mishnah back into Jesus' times, when in fact these books describe Judaism after the two Jewish wars when Judaism was whittled down to Pharisaism and was much more focused on the Torah. You'll notice in the Bible that Jesus never has encounters with Rabbi's... Pharisee's, Sadducee's, Scribe's, and priests, but no rabbi's. The reason for this is that there were no rabbi's hanging out around synagogues in Jesus' day. In fact there is no archaeological evidence that there were any schools anywhere in Galilee. There were some schools in Jerusalem, but this was far from Galilee. There simply were no ordained rabbi's in Jesus day like the one's that Bell describes. These ordained rabbis did not become prevalent until much later. This mistake of using a later rabbinic grid to interpret Jesus leads to a number of errors. One of the most prevalent errors is Bell's usage of Jesus' binding and loosing (Mt 16:19; 18:18). When Jesus speaks of 'binding' and 'loosing,' he's not talking about forbidding and allowing certain interpretations of the Old Testament texts. To 'bind' means to make a ruling that is binding, not to forbid something. To 'loose' means to free someone from the obligation or debt that was once bound upon them. Binding and loosing are mentioned only two times in the New Testament (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; see also John 20:23). In Matthew 16, Peter has just made a confession that Jesus is the Christ, and in response Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom and told him, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The point here is that Peter (and all disciples of Jesus) have the authority to admit and exclude people to the Kingdom of God. They do this by the proclamation of the gospel (this is why this follows Peter's confession of Jesus' identity). Similarly, in Matthew 18, the context deals with church discipline, and the point is that the church has the authority to admit/exclude people from God's Kingdom by declaring the terms under which sins are forgiven or retained. So contrary to what Bell contends, the Jerusalem council in Acts is not an example of 'binding' and 'loosing.'
2. Bell's Greek/Hebrew and history need some work. First, he seems to treat the biblical languages like they are a magic key that makes the text mean something different than it says in English. Whenever a teacher does this, you can assume (1) they're interpretation is probably wrong, and (2) they probably don't know Greek or Hebrew very well. In Bell's case, both are true. There's numerous examples, but one example is Bell's reference to the word 'virgin' in Matthew (26). He states that the word Matthew uses for virgin actually comes from Isaiah, and that the Hebrew word for virgin means several things. He says this to suggest that the virgin birth may not be a doctrine found in the Bible. In reality, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is almah, which means 'young woman.' In an honor/shame culture, this word surely included virginity, but would not focus exclusively on that trait. However, Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew, but the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint), where the word parthenos is used. Parthenos is equivalent to our English word virgin. Further, Bell suggests that the reason that Matthew includes a reference to a virgin birth is that it appealed to the members of the cults of Mithras and Dionysius. The Mithras cult did not exist until well after the writing of Matthew, and the cults of Mithras, Attis, and Dionysius did not focus on real historical persons. The worshipers knew that the gods they worshiped were not historical individuals. They therefore did not talk about actual virgin births. Finally it is simply not true that Julius Caesar or the other Emperors were said to be born of virgin births. Bell is right about the word euangelion (good news) being used by the Emperor cult, and that it was adopted by Christians to make their own claims about Jesus. As N.T. Wright says, "Jesus is the reality of which Caesar was only the parody." In short, it seems that Bell knows just enough Greek, Hebrew, and history to sound knowledgeable and therefore be dangerous.
3. There are numerous other questionable exegetical issues, but it would take too long to examine each of them. Some of the more flagrant one's are as follows:
- When Peter was walking on water, Peter lost faith in himself so it follows that I need to understand that Jesus believes in me, rather than focusing on believing in Jesus.
- The Bible states that all things are reconciled to God. So all people are forgiven--even those in hell.
- Hell is full of forgiven people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their story, rather than in God's version of it (146).
In conclusion, Bell seems to write from a very relativistic perspective. The book has serious philosophical and exegetical problems. Looking over Bell's sources, it seems that he reads a lot of authors who hold esoteric and minority positions. Finally, Bell seems to lack a focus on the glory of God. In my opinion, Rob Bell should refrain from writing more books until he learns to control his creativity, and learns to answer more questions than he asks. I'm concerned that readers of Bell's book will finish it with a greater sense of relativism, less confidence in their knowledge of the truth, and a cynicism towards contemporary Christianity.
I'll begin with what I liked about the book:
Bell does a good job of emphasizing that the church ought to function as a community. I think that in a lot of ways our individualistic culture has lost this aspect of the church. We ought to see our church as our family in a very real sense, and we ought to do life together in community. Bell emphasizes this, which is good. Along the same lines, he challenges our contemporary model of church where one person uses their gift of teaching and everyone else listens. If people go to a church meeting and just listen to a sermon and then go home, and this is the extent of their involvement, then I doubt biblically if this could count as being a member of that local body.
I thought Bell's emphasis on the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth is a needed corrective in our culture that tends to see God's kingdom as wholly in the future and somewhere else (in heaven). He does a good job of correcting eschatelogical naivetés by emphasizing that heaven will come to earth in the end. Also, I liked that Bell encouraged people to take a personal sabbath rest. This is much needed in our culture where busyness is seen as a virtue.
One area I particularly thought was good was Bell's treatment of sanctification (he didn't call it this). Bell states that we are not primarily identified as sinners, but as new creatures. He stresses that rather than focusing on sin management, we ought to focus on who we are in Christ, and then we will naturally begin to live as Jesus lived. This, I think, is a very powerful message and a much needed corrective. Along the same lines, he states that transformation in actions occurs when there is a genuine belief/trust in true reality--the reality that is described in the Bible. He ties this in with the idea that 'all truth is God's truth,' and the implications he draws from this for missions, evangelism, and other areas are good and useful.
Now I'll address the negative things about the book, which I'm sad to say, I think outweigh the positive things. I'll organize my thoughts under two headings: Philosophical issues, and exegetical issues.
A. Philosophical-Theological Issues
Bell begins by assuming that God cannot be described in human terms, so all our theology/doctrine are human constructs. This is a very dangerous false idea. It is true that we cannot capture all of who God is with language, but we can speak truly about God. In fact, you can't capture all of any person with language because persons are not static objects. In heaven, I will grow in my relationship with God more and more each day forever--even if I come to understand every Bible passage and theological doctrine with complete understanding--because God is a person. I will also continue to grow in knowing my wife, and every other Christian for all eternity. You can never fully know a person. However, just because I don't fully know my wife, doesn't mean that I don't know a whole lot about her. In the same way, although we may not be able to fully describe every aspect of who God is with language, we can describe Him truly. Dan was absolutely right without even reading the book. Bell is "conflating God's incomprehensibility with His ineffability." Bell also seems to draw a false dichotomy between knowledge and wonder. According to Bell, if you really knew God, then this leaves no room for wonder and awe about God. I would argue that the opposite is true. If you don't know God, then you will be without wonder and awe, and as you come to know Him and see Him as He truly is, you will grow in your wonder and awe of Him. God chose to inspire a book to teach us about Himself, and the words in that book give us true and accurate knowledge about God.
A second philosophical problem with the book is that Bell is relativistic. He seems to assume that all 'paintings' of Christianity are equally valid. According to Bell, the pre-reformation Catholic 'painting' is just different than the Reformer's 'painting.' But these two 'paintings' cannot be equally valid because they are diametrically opposed at important points. Furthermore, this idea is self-refuting because the idea that all 'paintings' of the Christian faith are equally valid, is itself a painting of the Christian faith. Is the 'painting' that says, "there is only one valid way to be a Christian" itself a valid 'painting' of the Christian faith? It seems to me that Bell has been unduly influenced by our culture's views about pluralism and tolerance. He seems to buy that in order to be tolerant, you have to accept other people's ideas as true. The real definition of tolerance is to allow someone to hold a different viewpoint even though you fundamentally disagree with them. Bell's relativism extends to two important areas: doctrine, and Scripture.
Doctrine
With reference to doctrine, Bell argues that we ought to see doctrine as the springs on a trampoline, that we jump on as we live in Christ. The springs are not the main point; they merely facilitate the main goal of "finding our lives in God." Now there is some truth to this analogy, but it is also very dangerous. If we don't like a doctrine or two, we can just take them off the trampoline and keep jumping. Here's Bell's take on the Trinity: "It is a spring, and people jumped for thousands of years without it. It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches" (22). And then again, here's Bell's take on the virgin birth: "What if that spring was seriously questioned? Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?" (26). Bell's unspoken conclusion seems to be that we could still be Christians without these fundamental doctrines; we could still keep jumping. But clearly we would consider someone who had rejected the Trinity and the Virgin Birth as being a non-Christian. You simply cannot throw out the core doctrines of the Christian faith and still call yourself a Christian. The idea of progressive revelation is that although a doctrine might be revealed over time, once that doctrine is revealed it is our obligation to believe it. People once did not believe in Jesus, but that's because Jesus had not been revealed. Now that he's been revealed, it is our obligation as Christians to believe in Him. The same goes for the Trinity and the virgin birth. If Bell wants to open up dialog to seriously discuss these doctrines, then that's great. But when he implies that we can do without them, that is unacceptable.
Scripture
Bell's relativism also extends to the interpretation of Scripture. Bell argues that the Bible has to be interpreted, a point with which very few people would disagree. But Bell goes further than this. He wants his readers to understand that they are entitled to interpret the Bible as much as anyone else (50). Furthermore, no one's interpretation is any better than anyone else's; they are all equally valid. He states, "When you hear people say they are just going to tell you what the Bible means, it is not true. They are telling you what they think it means. They are giving their own opinions about the Bible" (54). Earlier he writes, "Everyone's interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. No one is objective" (53). Bell applies this principle asking why we worship on Sunday rather than Saturday? "At one point in church history, a group of Christians decided that the Sabbath is not Saturday, but Sunday" (56). He goes on to ask why we do not sell all our possessions for the poor, or make women wear head coverings, or why do we say a wife's role is to submit to her husband? Bell answers, "This is because someone somewhere made a decision about those texts...Somebody in your history decided certain Bible verses still apply and others don't" (55-56). The effect of all this is making people feel bewildered at ever really understanding what the Bible says. It's true that every Christian can interpret the Bible for themselves (this is what we call the priesthood of believers), but the point is to get as close as possible to the author's original intended meaning, and some interpretations are flat out wrong, and some are better than others. Furthermore, although it's true that no one comes to the Bible without any pre-understandings, this does not mean that we cannot arrive at valid interpretations of a text. By being aware of our own biases and tendencies, and examining the context and flow of a passage, we can come to an accurate interpretation of a text.
B. Exegetical Issues
In addition to the philosophical problems in the book, there are numerous exegetical problems.
1. Jesus is not a rabbi as Bell indicates. Bell seems to read the Talmud and Mishnah back into Jesus' times, when in fact these books describe Judaism after the two Jewish wars when Judaism was whittled down to Pharisaism and was much more focused on the Torah. You'll notice in the Bible that Jesus never has encounters with Rabbi's... Pharisee's, Sadducee's, Scribe's, and priests, but no rabbi's. The reason for this is that there were no rabbi's hanging out around synagogues in Jesus' day. In fact there is no archaeological evidence that there were any schools anywhere in Galilee. There were some schools in Jerusalem, but this was far from Galilee. There simply were no ordained rabbi's in Jesus day like the one's that Bell describes. These ordained rabbis did not become prevalent until much later. This mistake of using a later rabbinic grid to interpret Jesus leads to a number of errors. One of the most prevalent errors is Bell's usage of Jesus' binding and loosing (Mt 16:19; 18:18). When Jesus speaks of 'binding' and 'loosing,' he's not talking about forbidding and allowing certain interpretations of the Old Testament texts. To 'bind' means to make a ruling that is binding, not to forbid something. To 'loose' means to free someone from the obligation or debt that was once bound upon them. Binding and loosing are mentioned only two times in the New Testament (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18; see also John 20:23). In Matthew 16, Peter has just made a confession that Jesus is the Christ, and in response Jesus gave him the keys of the kingdom and told him, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The point here is that Peter (and all disciples of Jesus) have the authority to admit and exclude people to the Kingdom of God. They do this by the proclamation of the gospel (this is why this follows Peter's confession of Jesus' identity). Similarly, in Matthew 18, the context deals with church discipline, and the point is that the church has the authority to admit/exclude people from God's Kingdom by declaring the terms under which sins are forgiven or retained. So contrary to what Bell contends, the Jerusalem council in Acts is not an example of 'binding' and 'loosing.'
2. Bell's Greek/Hebrew and history need some work. First, he seems to treat the biblical languages like they are a magic key that makes the text mean something different than it says in English. Whenever a teacher does this, you can assume (1) they're interpretation is probably wrong, and (2) they probably don't know Greek or Hebrew very well. In Bell's case, both are true. There's numerous examples, but one example is Bell's reference to the word 'virgin' in Matthew (26). He states that the word Matthew uses for virgin actually comes from Isaiah, and that the Hebrew word for virgin means several things. He says this to suggest that the virgin birth may not be a doctrine found in the Bible. In reality, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 is almah, which means 'young woman.' In an honor/shame culture, this word surely included virginity, but would not focus exclusively on that trait. However, Matthew is not quoting the Hebrew, but the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint), where the word parthenos is used. Parthenos is equivalent to our English word virgin. Further, Bell suggests that the reason that Matthew includes a reference to a virgin birth is that it appealed to the members of the cults of Mithras and Dionysius. The Mithras cult did not exist until well after the writing of Matthew, and the cults of Mithras, Attis, and Dionysius did not focus on real historical persons. The worshipers knew that the gods they worshiped were not historical individuals. They therefore did not talk about actual virgin births. Finally it is simply not true that Julius Caesar or the other Emperors were said to be born of virgin births. Bell is right about the word euangelion (good news) being used by the Emperor cult, and that it was adopted by Christians to make their own claims about Jesus. As N.T. Wright says, "Jesus is the reality of which Caesar was only the parody." In short, it seems that Bell knows just enough Greek, Hebrew, and history to sound knowledgeable and therefore be dangerous.
3. There are numerous other questionable exegetical issues, but it would take too long to examine each of them. Some of the more flagrant one's are as follows:
- When Peter was walking on water, Peter lost faith in himself so it follows that I need to understand that Jesus believes in me, rather than focusing on believing in Jesus.
- The Bible states that all things are reconciled to God. So all people are forgiven--even those in hell.
- Hell is full of forgiven people who simply have chosen to live in their own version of their story, rather than in God's version of it (146).
In conclusion, Bell seems to write from a very relativistic perspective. The book has serious philosophical and exegetical problems. Looking over Bell's sources, it seems that he reads a lot of authors who hold esoteric and minority positions. Finally, Bell seems to lack a focus on the glory of God. In my opinion, Rob Bell should refrain from writing more books until he learns to control his creativity, and learns to answer more questions than he asks. I'm concerned that readers of Bell's book will finish it with a greater sense of relativism, less confidence in their knowledge of the truth, and a cynicism towards contemporary Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)