A Review of Bell’s Reviewers (Picking My Wedgie)

The latest Christian controversy surrounding pastor Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins,” demonstrates a scary reality among the Christian community. Here we have a book with no footnotes and only one text in the bibliography, which happens to be a work of fiction, and those within the Christian community that disagree with the message are, for lack of better terminology, “freaking out,” as if this book is the undoing of everything we stand for. How can such a “lightweight” book, as I have heard it called, cause so much drama?

Should we ignore simple reads as if they have no real means to influence? I am not saying that. Bell meant to write a simple and accessible book so that others would consider his position. Surely people can be influenced by simple reads; just look at the “Tao Te Ching,” the “Gita”, or “Your Best Life Now”. Whether this books warrants a reaction or not, I must say that the sort of reaction that seems so pervasive does not seem to work. Does not such uproar generate more interest? Although I believe Bell is genuine when he states that he was not attempting to cause a firestorm, I can bet that it has helped his bank account as well as helped to disseminate his message. Good job, protestors. I bought the book thanks to this publicity. Now I support the enemy; Bell can get a Big Mac meal on me now…What have I done!

Last time I wrote about the common reaction to the book, I had not read it. I have now, and I was right in my assumption: I agreed with Bell in many of his statements, and I disagreed with him in others. No big deal…I am sure that others sometime agree and at other times disagree with me as well. But, I will tell you this. I am not quite ready to tie him to a stake and burn him. All the man really says is that he hopes that everyone makes it to heaven. What is so wrong with that? While he suggests that he sees this as a great possibility, he never comes out and says it is for certain. So, sue him. Does his book downplay the important doctrine of Hell? Maybe. But then again, I find people of varying backgrounds to downplay doctrines I find important, even vital, all the time. Do I discredit all that they have ever said? I would not have much to read if that were the case, except for the things I write. That would be a bit repetitive…

Before I go much further in my critique of the responders to the book, I must say this. I am not trying to suggest that this book does not warrant a response, even a negative one. Most every book warrants a response, and if one disagrees, so be it. However, these public denouncements of Bell and his book are uncalled for. Do I think that this book is great reading for the seeker wanting to be grounded in biblical theology? Maybe not… But, there are many books written by fine Christians that I would say the same about. Heck, I have written things I would not recommend to certain people. As I said in my last blog on this topic, our response should not be to outright condemn the book. A better approach would be to highlight Bell’s concerns, and then offer an alternative solution. (Dr. Timothy Tennent has demonstrated this sort of model very well in his blog response to Bell: timothytennent.com)

What is my point? Well, I find this controversy to be revealing of our Christian culture, and church leaders’ view on said culture. Here we have a non-scholarly take on heaven and hell, in that it was written from a more pastoral and not academic stance, and Christian leaders are worried that their flocks might be led astray. Can such a simple book lead people in certain directions? Surely it can. Just look at all the persons who flock to the messages of Joel Osteen. What does this say about the foundation that we are giving our community of believers? Is it our job as the church to censor any threatening reads that come down the pipe? If so, we would be exhausted in our efforts. There would be no time to preach. Our primary problem is not misleading readings, but our response to such: *Gasp, “Don’t let them see this. It might ruin them.” Instead, we should ground our community in proper and rigorous theological training. This should not be reserved for the seminaries. This should be the Christian reality. If people knew right doctrine, then we leaders could rest easier knowing that they, having the same faith, mental capacity, and education as we, could see what we see, if we indeed find so many flaws in a text.

We should be less worried about Bell and more worried about ourselves. Why are young Christians leaving at an unprecedented rate: they have no theological backing to sustain them in light of defeaters, arguments against the faith. They fall apart because they are ill prepared. We should spend less time censoring books and more time training. We cannot hold everyone’s hand in his or her walk. We have to prepare through proper discipleship: “Teaching them EVERYTHING” Christ has taught us.

Wow…I feel better. I feel as if I just picked out a wedgie that has been bothering me all day. What a cathartic experience…

Where Have all the Miracles Gone?

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients who might have been mistaken about the reality of God? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

A dear friend of mine posed a question that is tough to answer: Why does God not perform miracles any more? Of course there is an assumption being made, but in reality God does not seem to interact with us modern folks as He did with the ancients. Could it just be that we are more mature in all our knowledge than these ancients? Maybe, but could there be another valid conclusion as well. I think so. I have mentioned it before in my article, “Divine Hiddenness,” but I wish to revisit the thought today.

Why do miracles not happen before our eyes so that we might believe? Those who pose such a question will say that they would believe in God if God would but provide inescapable proof. One obvious rebuttal is that this would then preclude the need for faith, but that is a discussion (with certain objections) for another time, that discussion being the very reality of faith itself. Nonetheless, these people wish for an outward sign so that they might form an inner relationship. They want the flesh to experience the spiritual, but what the flesh experiences cannot create a spiritual experience. Flesh begets flesh, and spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). These people who wish to seek Christ on their own terms, wish to seek God apart from His spirit, and all they can discern in this state comes from natural eyes (1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, all the fire and smoke that God could conjure will benefit men nothing if the Spirit is not involved in the process, opening spiritual eyes as well. This was the mistake of the rich man spoken of by Christ in Luke 16:19-31. To wish for God to create a supernatural sign before one is willing to seek His way is to place God under the human. The hard reality is that we must seek God on His own terms. Moreover, when unspiritual eyes take hold of spiritual realities, it does not take long for the human mind to begin to discredit what has obviously happened.

Some would suggest that the time for God’s vocal interaction and miracles is consigned to the past, a dispensation now gone. There are many in the Christian culture who want to affirm this point so that they might retain some perceived credibility, only to have the skeptical community mock their belief. Christians with good intentions will use this excuse that they derive as a matter of observation, and the skeptic will say, “How convenient?” In an attempt to not be seen as fanatical or crazy, this Christian makes a mockery of his or her belief. What else can well-intentioned Christians say in light of the reality that they have never seen a miracle, right? The truth is that miracles happen all around us, and it often takes a spiritual eye to be seen. This is not to suggest that supernatural phenomenon do not break into the natural realm so that even unbelieving eyes can see. But, in a society of skeptics as our own, God will often refrain from such demonstrations in order to protect the skeptic and His order of salvation (see essay “Divine Hiddenness”).

No one must assume that they can come to Christ apart from Christ simply because they are able to, in light of new evidence, accent to truth. We cannot come to God apart from God and His work in the heart. While His outward work might serve as confirmation, it is not the same as His inner work that brings forth salvation. The first step is God’s and our call is not to demand how He must work for us personally, but to submit to His work in our lives. It is hard to let go of control, but that is our call.

Scripture in Context of Ancient Near Eastern Religion

The Scriptures cannot be separated from the historical, religious, or cultural setting in which it was written. If it is, then an essential message is missed. A vital importance as to the purpose of Scripture goes unrevealed, and thinkers then hold a lower view of Scripture than is warranted. This is not to suggest that its context as it relates to space and time has no real bearing for those of another space and time, like the modern reader. On the contrary, Judeo-Christian theology is set apart in that it uses history as a vital vehicle to teach theology, and that is just the point. God uses real, unrepeatable history to teach us of His nature, and He begins His teaching on a great scale with Israel. Thus, to understand the Bible, we need to understand Israel and how they saw the world.

Just as a nation's history is of utmost importance to the future decisions of that community, so the Scripture is of utmost importance to the Christian community, giving us a trajectory and purpose. Without historical context, we might wrongly appropriate or miss portions of Scripture for our life today. Furthermore, and more important for this particular discussion, if the historical context is ignored, then one will never see the stark contrast and uniqueness of Scripture as compared to the various pagan religions of the day when Scripture was actually written, a contrast that is purposefully demonstrated by the Scripture. By coming to understand that much of what is said in Scripture, although applicable to the modern reader, was primarily important for the purpose of giving the ancient reader a set-apart  (holy)worldview from the entire rest of the world, we might come to understand how the Judeo-Christian faith differs from all other religions of old, and seeing this contrast demonstrates the importance of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

In modern times, with the applications of critical scholarship, which has many merits, many persons see the emergence of all world religions as coming from some common and basic human need to explain reality in order to have comfort or control. The main focal point of the conversation would be in discussing how Israelite religion, what we might call YHWHism (remembering that Judaism is a particular later development of the overall belief of all Hebrews, the religion shared by all twelve tribes, not just Judah), the beliefs shared in the OT canon, came from the same starting point that all Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) religions come from. It is a convoluted conversation, filled with many errors, but if the secular scholar concludes that Israelite religion had to have a different origin than its ANE contemporaries, then he or she has to face the reality of that origin. Instead, many secular, critical scholars begin with a priori idea that Hebrew faith had to come from the same humanistic concerns as all the other ANE religions.

In other words, all religion is just an expression of a shared, inner human desire to have purpose and guidance. In light of this claim, many have come to the conclusion that religion is a manmade device and is a hindrance to coming to know truth. In many of these persons’ minds, humanity needs to come to grips with our finitude and take responsibility in light of such truths. One of the biggest proponents of this worldview in more modern times is Simon De Beauvoir (1908-1986). In her book, The Ethic of Ambiguity, she contends that humans, as the highest life form, have a responsibility to develop an ethic that benefits life in general. We take God's place in deciding what is right and wrong. Others of the same mindset (that religion is a ploy for control/comfort and that human life has no purpose or value assigned by a creator ) differ from Beauvoir and the like and simply suggest that life came about by chance and has no real purpose and cannot be given any value by any means. Nihilism then becomes their lens to view the world. Either conclusion makes since in light of the assumption that all religions are essentially the same and that humans are alone in their intellect. One simply demonstrates a more optimistic view than that of the other. However, is it true that all religions are the same? And what would it mean if one foundational, ancient religion were different than all other ancient religions?

The earliest historical worldviews, other than those given in Scripture, revolved around the influence of paganism, and monotheism did not take hold (in any lasting sense) until the Israelite community was formed. Some might suggest that the only distinction between monotheism and the polytheism of the pagans was the number of gods. This is a very uneducated claim, and has little to do with reality. The idea of how many gods exists is intrinsically related to the worldview/philosophy of the religion. There do exist others, scholars at that, that suggest that Hebrew thought did emerge from ancient near Eastern (ANE) myth, but over time they developed their own thinking, paganism evolving into monotheism. To suggest such comes from that a priori philosophy that all religion emerged from the same origins, and this too has little to do with reality. To think that the Hebrews ever borrowed from others to create the basis of their culture is to misunderstand the Hebrew people. They have always distinguished themselves, and they account all their misfortunes to times when they have assimilated. There is almost no illusion to myth in Scripture, and when there is, it is contrasted with the transcendent thought of the Hebrews. Thus, the theory of myth as foundation for the Hebraic worldview has to contend, with little backing, that the Hebrews’ thoughts over time changed so drastically that they swiftly and completely ridded themselves of this mythical undergirding. In other words, what is being suggested is the wild theory that while the Hebrew sources for Scripture and earliest thoughts revolved around mythic thinking of the pagan world, the Hebrews eventually completely removed all this talk as they developed their own religious writings, the Old Testament. This is to say that they eventually removed their whole foundation. This fantastic view of the development of Hebraic thought is all based on a philosophy, and this is proven by the claim that, while there is no evidence anymore due to the radical stripping of all evidence by these Semites, the foundation used to be there, even if we cannot see it. Now that is faith, misplaced as it is.

The reality is that it is much easier to affirm Hebraic thought was radical and revolutionized thought from the outset, not that it began one way, but totally went against its foundations so that no record shows a strain of its old self. Monotheism did not just bring with a new idea of the number of the gods, but the idea of God as transcendent and the creator of nature, not nature itself. This idea was revolutionary for human thought. It was completely different than anything ever thought of before. Before talk of the uniqueness of Hebraic thought might be expressed, we must first speak of the worldview of pagan myth, a reality very often not understood by modern thinkers. It is truly foreign to our thought process, but it used to be all that existed, as far as broad sweeping worldviews are concerned. History is clear on this fact. This is not to say that God was not at work in the lives of humanity, but humanity before the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant had wondered very far away from God and had developed humanistic views of reality.

The Pagan world did not distinguish between subject and object. People were simply part of one great whole. Individuals interacted with the world and saw the world as an extension of everything else. The world, and the things in it where not just things for the ancients. They did not see things in nature as objects, but other individuals like themselves. The overwhelming reality for the ancients was a sense of continuity. While there was recognition of nature, humanity, and deity, there was not a distinction made between the three in the sense of separateness. They are all parts of one whole. The conclusions that are made from this sort of thinking lead to a wholly different worldview than that of the modern thinkers’. For example, since all things are essentially the same, human value is downplayed (this view of religion is still evident in Hinduism). For the vast majority of the ANE, with the one exception of the Hebrews, the reality was that everything is in the same realm and somewhat connected to the divine, pantheism. Therefore humans had some interaction and bearing on nature and the divine. This is why they created idols. If something looked the same or sounded the same, then it was the same. If the idol represented a god, and looked like that god, and the ANE pagan thought it did, then the idol bearer could manipulate the god by manipulating the idol. Incidentally, this is why one of the Ten Commandments suggests that humans are not to make idols. God is saying that such an idea is wrong. God cannot be controlled. For the pagan, this intellectual idea had a very practical function. If I am like the gods, and my reality reflects theirs’ and vice versa, then I have some control. If I do something here, then it is done in the heavens. This is the thought behind magic as a religious practice.

Two of the greatest distinctions for the ancient thinker were 1) their view, or lack thereof of history, and 2.) their idea of continuity. For the ancient pagan, the only reality that had any bearing upon the person was the present. There was no value given to human history. While there was a primeval history of the gods creating this realm, that had no bearing on reality in the present. While there are examples of "historic" writings in the ANE, the value of such writing was not as it is today. the ANE thinker did not view history as something to learn from, rather it is something to manipulate (just like the gods) in order to determine certain outcomes. Neither did the future have any value. Only what happened to “me” had any bearing on the self. Greeks did find social value in history, but not in any real transcendent sense, at least not as early as the Hebrews (Undoubtedly the Greeks eventually bring a high level of sophistication to this way of thinking). History did not pertain to the gods as a tool to teach humans. The Oriental world also recorded history, but found no eternal value in history because it always changed. The idea of God and history as intricately related was unique to the Hebrews.

Continuity, as previously explained, meant that there existed in the earliest history of the world no distinction in the minds of people between subject and object. There was only continuity, and this recognition was of utmost importance for the self. Others had no real value since they are just a small part of everything else. When God reveals Himself as other and distinct from the world, the Hebrews begin to understand themselves as distinct as well. For the first time, people were observing objects as other, and they contemplated how things worked. This is the most fundamental realization for modern science, and it was the Hebrews who first made this distinction. The Greeks later develop this thought from their own philosophy, but it is the Hebrew people who, as a whole, first note this as a reality. The majority of the people who upheld myth denied the early Greek philosophers their recognition. Only the Hebrew culture can claim that as a people they were the first to introduce the importance of history and subject-object distinction across their whole culture (as primitive as it might have been). And this reality is attributed to the event, some merely recognize it as a story, of YHWH’s revelation to Abraham, when God reveals that He is other. It did not take long before the Hebrews realized that if God was different from them, that they might be different from other things as well. In other words, they are not the same as the trees, the rocks, and other objects of nature.  The Hebrew Scripture stands alone in the ancient world as holding a subject-object distinction, which is the common view of the modern world that we take for granted. Without the contribution of Monotheism no one can be sure when a high regard for history and subject-object distinction would have entered the world.

Again, the Greek philosophers were the closest to the Hebrews in thought, but the Hebrew people still hold the genesis of many thoughts we take for granted today. No other ancient people other than the Hebrews thought of the idea that reality had a beginning. For the Greeks, the world was assumed eternal. Today most persons believe in creation ex nihilo, whether these persons are atheistic or believers. Moreover, the Greeks were trying to figure out who their gods were. The Hebrews knew their God and worked from there. Their God was the maker of all things, and He was not that which He made. If God made humanity, humans have worth, and if He is personal then He is part of history, and history is important (this is not to say He is subject to history, but He is a part). With all this in mind, we can explore our world, but we cannot manipulate fate. On so many fronts, the biblical worldview, first revealed to the Hebrews, stands alone as a way of thinking in the ANE. Thus, the Bible is not just one of many books written, but it stands alone as a whole other system of thinking altogether. Therefore, one is not warranted to toss out Christianity based on his or her view of religion as a whole.

Many scholars will point out that the myths of the pagans and the stories of the Bible have similarity, but they do not continue to speak to the differences. When the stories seem to have similar qualities, the thought that should come to mind is to see where they differ. For example, most ANE creation accounts, which do not really focus on creation at all, but the gods’ interactions and the accidental making of humanity, focus on gods creating reality from chaos and battle. When the Genesis account opens, God is not at war. There are no other gods over which he must establish Himself. He does not have to struggle to create, and He creates all that is, not just placing things into some order. Moreover, everything is purposeful. Man is not an accident, but the crown jewel of creation. Where else is this expressed in the ANE? On a superficial level, similarities can be seen, but the messages of each are completely different. The ANE, just like our world today, has shared vocabulary and constructs (such as literary genres). It is not that these documents share a common vocabulary of sorts or a common structure that we should take note. It is how they use these constructs to speak their thoughts, and, as shown above in this one example, Pagans and Hebrews thought very differently. They did not come from the same starting point. 

The Bible stands alone, and any self-respecting scholar should deal with it as such. This means that the Bible has a whole separate genesis than all other religions and that the Hebrew people, by some means, became the first people of recorded history to make the subject-object distinction, the distinction we base most of our value of truth (especially in the practice of science) today. Were the Hebrews just that much more in tune with reality and smarter than everyone else? That is a possibility. However, it is unlikely that these people that spent so much time in captivity, exile, and wandering would find the time to philosophize on their own. It is much more likely that someone revealed to them these truths, and since there were no ANE contemporaries in their world that held this belief and the Greeks only developing similar ideas later in history, there were no people capable to give the Hebrew people such a thought, a more plausible idea is that it came from elsewhere, and the Hebrews suggest that this elsewhere is the mouth of the divine, transcendent God. We have no better explanation, no matter how hard we try. It is probably prudent, then, to take them at their world.

For more on this topic: Oswalt, John: The Bible Among the Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 2009).