|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:36:44 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:37:48 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Can I be saved if Christ is the son of Larry and I believe that? (he was a good man, teacher, healer, prophet of God)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:43:12 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
Crankius,
Now that you are reading, let me warn about the section on "binding and loosing," so that you won't have a fatal coronary. It's quite disturbing.
I didn't see much that was all that disturbing. Much that could be misinterpreted, but nothing that bugged me. His basic points:
1) The bible is a living, breathing document that speaks to all people at all times and places. (So far, so good.)
2) Paradoxically, it's also written within a certain time and place. (Well, duh!)
3) To understand the bible today, you have to understand the certain time and place in which it was written. (OK-that's standard conservative seminary fare today. The idea wasn't so popular just 30 years ago.)
4) In doing so, we of each generation need to interpret the bible - what did it mean then and what does that mean for me today. (Right. I do that everytime I pick up the bible. We all do.)
5) In doing that however, I need to be aware that I'm probably never going to get it exactly right. I carry within me a lot of biases - from parentage, from education, from popular culture. There's a lot of static, and I can never completely eliminate the static. That calls for some humility and care on my part as I do my interpretation.
I'm not a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) - I'm more like a New York City subway car from a few years back that carries a lot of other people's graffiti on it. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that we carry a lot of personal biases into our interpretations. Just surf crosswalk for half an hour and it becomes fairly obvious.
His biggest "scandalous" comment here regards the idea of "sola scriptura" - scripture alone. He says no, it's never scripture alone. He says that at some point, there's faith involved. Faith in God's inspiration, faith that the people who canonified (is that a word?) the bible were inspired to choose the correct books, faith that God is faithful to preserve his words over time within the various translations we have.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:46:13 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).
How does that link to Bell?
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:48:59 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And if Jesus is not the Son of God, then He was a lunatic, liar, or both!
I loved that book. This was the best statement in it.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 11:53:33 AM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
As you guys and say that Bell is stupid then you need to look and see if you have it alright.
Bell tells me that the Bible is a human product. Of course the bible itself tells me otherwise. Who shall I believe? Rob Bell the booksalesman or God the Creator of the World?
quote:
Their are some in these threads who post that they believe in speaking in tongues. I don't agree with their interputation of the scriptures. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I have all the answer. And they are the fools on the hill
Don't confuse essential doctrines and non essential. In these debates concerning these guys they are going after the essentials. They are outside the Christian faith.
You've completely missed Bell's point if you think he believes the bible is a human product. He believes that humans and God combined in a mysterious way to produce a uniquely inspired document. He doesn't believe in a dictation theory of inspiration, that much is clear. Many of us here on this forum don't ascribe to that. I think God could have plopped a pre-written document in our laps without our participation. He chose not to do that. I think the fact that he used humans and wrapped them into the process of creating the bible is important.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:05:23 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3148
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And if Jesus is not the Son of God, then He was a lunatic, liar, or both!
I loved that book. This was the best statement in it. But GroupW, if you (and Bell) believe that the divinity of Christ is irrelevant to our salvation, then why is this such a good statement? Can the Bible be "extremely holy" if Its Author is a lunatic or liar? Can we truly love a god who is crazy or deceiving? See your post from the last page:
quote:
I think he picked the wrong brick here to play around with removing. Still, yeah, if Christ's father turned out to be a guy named Larry, I would remain convinced that there is something within the bible that is extremely holy. I'd be shake to the core, but I wouldn't fall. But that's not really the point he's making here either. His point is that there are a lot of "bricks" the church asks us to hold. Not all of them are cornerstones. Some are, some aren't. My theory and I think his - if you just worry about loving God, the important bricks become clear.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:05:59 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord (A Generous Orthodoxy, 260, 262, 264).
A good example of why context is needed. My take on this is that he's talking about the cultural religion and not the underlying practice of faith. In some (as he says, not all!) cases, it may be best to let a buddhist christian remain in a buddhist cultural context and not try to make him exactly like me - an american-style evangelical. It's a big debate right now among those who study missions - how much should the underlying culture be "christianized". In the past, I think we've swung too far in creating little "mini-me's". It's not always been healthy. I think McLaren's vagueness here reflects the uncertainty a lot of us feel on this issue. How far do you push cultural aspects of Christianity. I really don't know.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:10:37 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
And if Jesus is not the Son of God, then He was a lunatic, liar, or both!
I loved that book. This was the best statement in it. But GroupW, if you (and Bell) believe that the divinity of Christ is irrelevant to our salvation, then why is this such a good statement? Can the Bible be "extremely holy" if Its Author is a lunatic or liar? Can we truly love a god who is crazy or deceiving? See your post from the last page:
quote:
I think he picked the wrong brick here to play around with removing. Still, yeah, if Christ's father turned out to be a guy named Larry, I would remain convinced that there is something within the bible that is extremely holy. I'd be shake to the core, but I wouldn't fall. But that's not really the point he's making here either. His point is that there are a lot of "bricks" the church asks us to hold. Not all of them are cornerstones. Some are, some aren't. My theory and I think his - if you just worry about loving God, the important bricks become clear.
Exactly my point. Neither one of us believes that. Nonetheless, if someone were to prove that (which they won't, I'm confident) I find enough in the bible that is true - namely my own depravity and utter helplessness to change that fact - that I would continue to pursue this faith regardless. I have no better alternative. It's the best description of reality that I've ever found or ever expect to find.
Edit: The logic behind that statement is what finally brought me back to faith. The fact of my own depravity is inescapable. Along with the fact of God's love and redemption, it's foundational in Christianity. No matter what anyone else may ever say, prove, imply, write, or pontificate upon, this fact will never change. It's why I'm an evangelical Christian and can't really be anything else. Even if every other doctrine were to be completely discredited (they won't, not all of them anyway), I would still hold to this and pursue God as he's described in the bible. I can't help it.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 8/20/2008 12:21:20 PM >
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:20:06 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3148
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
How far do you push cultural aspects of Christianity. I really don't know. There are no "cultural aspects of Christianity" involved in saving faith. Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 clearly demonstrate this doctrinal truth. This is the whole problem with "McClaren's vagueness" because John 14:6 is NOT vague!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:31:12 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
I think you misinterpret what I'm saying in your quote. I'm talking about the cultural trappings of Christianity and not the underlying salvational principles. The principles of sin/repentence/redemption are a fairly cross-cultural thing.
Not always completely devoid of cultural content however. For example, there was a tribe in New Guinea that really had an ethos of justice. An eye for an eye, etc. While the concept of forgiveness wasn't completely absent, it wasn't viewed as unequivocally a good thing. This took some work on behalf of the missionary working there (who came from my old "fundy" church by the way - she used to be the youth minister there) to overcome the perception of a forgiving God as weak.
How she presented the faith within that context needed to shift a bit in order to be understood appropriately. In the end, it might not have been wise to barge in with a very western-looking doctrine of forgiveness in that culture. Allowing faith to "percolate" within that culture for a time may have been effective. That's what I don't know.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:37:22 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I agree that he probably picked the wrong brick to use for his example. I think it's fine to take him to task on that. It's not fine if we focus on taking him to task on that and completely disregard the fact that he does have a point. Yeah, I think he makes a blunder there. He still has a good point.
You're not the first person I've seen make that argument in connection with Bell's statement about the virgin birth.
I wonder about something, though. Does Bell himself consider it a mistake or blunder that he used the virgin birth to illustrate his point?
My point is, I don't consider Bell to be stupid. He may make mistakes, yes, but would he have written what he wrote about the virgin birth if he truly didn't believe it was a non-important issue? Whether or not there may have been other things he may have mentioned (some refer to the Creation account as an example of a non-salvific issue), the fact is he chose THAT one.
And whether he has a point or not is, in a sense, beside the point. It is lost, rightly or wrong, in the illustration he uses for it. And the concern over his ideas is justified.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:44:05 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
My point is, I don't consider Bell to be stupid. He may make mistakes, yes, but would he have written what he wrote about the virgin birth if he truly didn't believe it was a non-important issue?
Given that he affirms the concept later on, I'm not willing to make him out to be disingenuous here. I'm inclined to chalk it up to a) bad judgement, and b) the use of words for shock value in the assumption that you can guide people to a different way of thought through the use of strong and surprising word choice.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:45:54 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
And the concern over his ideas is justified.
We should ALWAYS have concern for the ideas of others. Absolutely. It's one of the good things about forums like these. And part of the fun of being a Christian. If there weren't differences of opinion, we wouldn't have much to talk about 
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:47:36 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
it may be best to let a buddhist christian remain in a buddhist cultural context and not try to make him exactly like me - an american-style evangelical
What is a Buddhist culture?
No, really, can a religion be defined as a culture?
Sure, one could, for example, point to Tibetan culture, and one could likely say that in that culture Buddhism is very strong. But it would be going too far to say that any person who is a part of the Tibetan culture must of necessity be a Buddhist, just as it would be going to far to say that someone who is part of the US culture must be a Christian.
And if you want to say that religions can have a culture of their own, then you're defeating the purpose of trying to defend McLaren's statement.
If, for example, the first church had thought it important to stay in Jewish religious culture, they would likely have either never gone to the Gentiles, or have had Gentile converts come under the Jewish law.
And isn't that one of the controversies the early church faced? Isn't it Paul who has to warn the churches to beware of coming under the law, and must denouce those who teach that?
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:49:15 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
Context is always necessary. I can't buy your implication here that he thinks God was defeated in any material sense.
Yes, sorry. I still think you're using this quote out of context. For any Christian writer, liberal or otherwise, to think of the kingdom of God and Christ as "defeated" is absurd. If that we're truly the case, we'd all lay down our bibles and quit buying his books. Even if he believed it, he wouldn't write it.
GroupW,
It concerns me…deeply! that you don’t understand why McLaren’s statements are not true under any circumstance. Under no circumstances, and in no way was Jesus defeated. However, because you think I am taking him out of context, I will put provide the context for you. Prepare to be introduced to the absurd.
To set this up, let me say that McLaren describes the Kingdom as a movement that seeks to obliterate injustice, oppression, etc.
quote:
"In addition, for many people today, kingdom language evokes patriarchy, chauvinism, imperialism, domination, and a regime without freedom. Not a pretty picture - and the very opposite of the liberating, barrier-breaking, domination-shattering, reconciling movement the kingdom of God was intended to be!" (Secret Message of Jesus; pg.139)
Over and over again McLaren says this is the purpose of the Kingdom that is here now. With this definition in mind, McLaren tells us how the miracles (signs and wonders) are a living illustration of this Kingdom theology, i.e., His instructions about how to pray, and more to the point of this post, His activities, i.e. driving out demons.
quote:
"In the previous chapter, you may have noticed that I strategically avoided an important issue. Among the many signs and wonders of Jesus, I never mentioned one of the most important and - to many of us - strangest: Jesus' confrontations with evil powers. Those demonic confrontations give us a window, I believe, into Jesus' secret method to bring his secret message to fruition. (pg. 62)
quote:
“His dominant opposition arises not from dirty personal demons crouching in darkness but rather from dirty systems of power and violence operating in powerful people who function in broad daylight. Just as he draws out and drives out hidden demonic invaders, Jesus must draw out, expose, name, reject, and banish this systemic, transpersonal evil - incognito beneath robes and crowns, hiding in temples and palaces, camouflaged behind political slogans and images on coins, covert in policies and traditions, seeming to ‘possess’ groups so they think and move in an awful choreography.” (pg. 64)
Notice McLaren’s use of the word “draw” alongside of “drive.” From this quote forward, McLaren relies on the phrase “draw out” to describe how Jesus dealt with demonic forces. Which brings me to an important note: people must read McLaren carefully because apparently every word and phrase is carefully selected to communicate something. Any time he diverges from the Biblical description of something, such as replacing “driving out” with "drawing out" demons, it serves as a clue to pay special attention to how that change will be used to justify some teaching that is not quite right.
McLaren goes on to apply this “drawing out” the evil inherent in social systems to Jesus’ crucifixion:
quote:
“The story is familiar: the religious and political-military powers collaborate and negotiate and reach an elegant final solution: Jesus will be crucified as a rebel. He will be nailed to a Roman cross - the visible symbol of the power of the Roman principality and power, the instrument of torture and execution that is the end of all who stand up against Rome.
They crush him and his movement. And it appears that Jesus has failed.
This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. It is crushed. When its message of love, peace, justice, and truth meets the principalities and powers of government and religion armed spears and swords and crosses, they unleash their hate, force, manipulation, and propaganda. Like those defenseless students standing before tanks and machine guns in Tiananmen Square, the resistance movement known as the kingdom of God is crushed.
But what is the alternative? We really must consider this question. Could the kingdom of God come with bigger weapons, sharper swords, more clever political organizing? Could the kingdom of God be a matter of what is often called redemptive violence? Or would that methodology corrupt the kingdom of God so it would stop being ‘of God’ at all and instead become just another earthly (and perhaps in some sense demonic) principality or power? Perhaps the kingdom could come with flawless, relentless, irresistible logic…Or would that mental conquest be as dominating as military conquest, reducing the kingdom of God to a kingdom of coercive stridency?
What if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form - as a kingdom ‘not of this world’ - is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by first being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideologies, and counter kingdoms - so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for the new and better kingdom? What if the kingdom of God must fail in these ways fail in order to succeed?” (Pg. 69-71)
In the run up to the quote above, McLaren set up this interpretation of Jesus’ crucifixion by comparing Jesus’ kingdom mission and method to some notable recent events:
quote:
“In the face of the simple moral authority of Jesus, the power and authority of Rome seem brutally grotesque and ethically pathetic. One thinks of the Chinese students standing dwon tanks in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or Nelson Mandela…or Martin Luther King Jr. sitting in prison…or Gandhi - not an identified Christian, but one who seemed to understand the secret way of Jesus better than many Christians - as he led non-violent resistance agains imperialism and religious hatred.” pg. 67-68)
It should be clear from these quotes that McLaren teaches that Jesus’ crucifixion was about non-violent resistance in order to “draw out” and expose the counter kingdom nature of world systems. He does this by demonstrating how far these entities will go to silence, even a peaceful man who exposes and opposes their methods and who offends their sensibilities. For McLaren the cross is about a non-violent demonstration, like the student standing down the tank in Tiananmen Square, and through it (the cross) Jesus is teaching his followers that they cannot adopt the methods of the very people and groups they oppose. This will many times end in defeat, it will have to be weak, but the evil that defeat and weakness exposes will cause more and more people to realize how Jesus’ way is more desirable than the oppressive systems so common in the world today.
It’s a social gospel that paints the cross as a form of protest, not the great victory over sin it really was/is!
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:53:27 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
quote:
it may be best to let a buddhist christian remain in a buddhist cultural context and not try to make him exactly like me - an american-style evangelical
What is a Buddhist culture?
No, really, can a religion be defined as a culture?
Sure, one could, for example, point to Tibetan culture, and one could likely say that in that culture Buddhism is very strong. But it would be going too far to say that any person who is a part of the Tibetan culture must of necessity be a Buddhist, just as it would be going to far to say that someone who is part of the US culture must be a Christian.
And if you want to say that religions can have a culture of their own, then you're defeating the purpose of trying to defend McLaren's statement.
If, for example, the first church had thought it important to stay in Jewish religious culture, they would likely have either never gone to the Gentiles, or have had Gentile converts come under the Jewish law.
And isn't that one of the controversies the early church faced? Isn't it Paul who has to warn the churches to beware of coming under the law, and must denouce those who teach that?
I'm not sure I follow. Religions aren't a culture, but they exist in a cultural context. The question is how much should one try to reshuffle that context when you try to live a Christian life. Do you buck the culture, or do you go with the flow. There are biblical examples of both, and a continuum in between.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 12:58:43 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
Context is always necessary. I can't buy your implication here that he thinks God was defeated in any material sense.
Yes, sorry. I still think you're using this quote out of context. For any Christian writer, liberal or otherwise, to think of the kingdom of God and Christ as "defeated" is absurd. If that we're truly the case, we'd all lay down our bibles and quit buying his books. Even if he believed it, he wouldn't write it.
GroupW,
It concerns me…deeply! that you don’t understand why McLaren’s statements are not true under any circumstance. Under no circumstances, and in no way was Jesus defeated.
It likewise concerns me that you are unable to see the one manner in which the word "defeated" is appropriate. There is an apparent, illusory defeat of Christ on the cross. It's not a defeat in fact, only in appearance. In appearance, Ceasar wins. In fact, he loses.
Paul himself assents to that idea - to others, the cross is foolisness. To us, it's the grandest hope. It's a very simple and basic biblical idea that the weak is made strong and the strong is made weak. We live in an upside down kingdom. In the illusory "defeat" (not the quote marks, as in "so-called", "not real"), God claims victory - not just in the battle, but in the war.
I don't see the reason for the offense here. I'm sorry if that bugs you. The concept of the upside down kingdom is too biblical for me to back down on that one. I can't do it.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 1:02:34 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Given that he affirms the concept later on
Yes, he does say that he believed in the virgin birth. But that's in the process of saying that he thinks it's not important.
quote:
"But if the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn't that strong in the first place, was it?"
"What if that spring was seriously questioned?
"Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?
"Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live
"Or does the whole thing falls apart?"
Could we still be Christians? What would being a Christian mean, if the very thing that made us Christian is in the end a lie? The word 'Christian' would be meaningless, a lie, a farce.
Could we still love God? What kind of God would there be left to love? A God of mythical lies and empty promises? A God who has told us Jesus is His begotten Son, when in reality Jesus was only a human like any of the rest of us?
Suppose the Bible is only a bunch of man-made stories. Let's say that it was written by pretty good and intelligent people, who had what most people would consider a good sense of ethics and morality. Lets say the most people generally considered right-thinking would largely agree with what those men wrote, or would at least take it seriously.
That would put it on the level of, say, the writings of every other major religious leader, and philosopher, and ethicist.
In other words, the Bible would become one more option among the many. We would have no reason to accept it's claims above any other.
So, the question would be, why would a man of great personal strengths accept the 'help the poor' ethics of the Bible, when he could accept the 'will to power' ethics of Neitzsche? Why should a person who has worked hard to achieve competence not choose a Randian ethic which would glorify his achievements over a biblical one which makes him responsible for his neighbor? Why should the "lady's man" accept the biblical sexual mores when he could have much more fun with a looser view on such things?
f the Bible were simply some collection of mythical stories containing some ethical teachings and truisms, then to adhere to it would only make one the follower of a philosophical and ethical school of thought. One may as well be Socratic, or Kantian, or Buddhist, or fill in the blank _________.
It would, simply, take the compulsion out of Christianity. There would be no serious or eternal consequences to breaking biblical morality. There would be no Heaven waiting for believers or Hell for those who don't. Jesus' death would have little real meaning, as he was only a regular joe and not the sacrifice for our sins. In fact, our biblical concepts of sin and our need to be delivered from it has almost no meaning, because it's not about sin but about ethics.
So, perhaps the whole thing wouldn't so much 'fall apart' as much as would be gutted and become marginalized. We would have made, for example, the Ten Commandments into mere suggestions--maybe good suggestions, but without any authority behind them, people would have no compulsion to keep them.
I think this is one possibility Bell leaves open with his idea.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 1:09:06 PM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm not sure I follow.
Here is what McLaren wrote.
quote:
it may be best to let a buddhist christian remain in a buddhist cultural context
For one thing, he makes a mistake when he refers to a "Buddist Christian". There is and cannot be any such creature. There may be Christians who are parts of cultures that are largely Buddhist, but that does not make one a Buddhist Christian.
He is also the one who refers to "Buddhist cultural context". My point was to point out that there is no such thing as Buddhist culture unless one means the Buddhist religion. And sense McLaren seems to be saying that a Christian should remain in the Buddhist religion, then he is teaching something very wrong.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 1:11:26 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jazzact13
Yes, he does say that he believed in the virgin birth. But that's in the process of saying that he thinks it's not important.
If he didn't think it were important, I don't think he'd emphasize the importance of handing down this and other doctrines to future generations, which he does a few paragraphs on. I don't think one hands irrelevancies down to the future generations. That's something one does with things of import and significance.
Again, you miss his fundamental point. While I agree his example is poorly chosen, the "all-or-none" take on fundamentalist faith has been extremely damaging, at least to me. That's his point. Taking a step back from that is a good thing. I can't die on every hill. I'll die on this one, sure.
I think it's premature to judge him on the basis of one possibly poorly chosen example. I think it's fair to question him on the point, but right now I don't see | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
