Peter Rollins did a twitter chat interview with Third Way Magazine yesterday. I put together a transcript for those who would be interested. It was fun to see Peter limited to short answers (twitter only allows messages to be 140 characters long), as he usually has long, detailed responses which bunny-trail in several different directions (and you wonder why I like him!). I cleaned it up a little to get rid of text-speak and possible confusion from the letter limit.
---------------------------------
Third Way: We should get this one in first. Someone asked: 'If I've never heard of you, can you sum yourself up in 140 characters?'
Peter Rollins: Orthodox heretic, a/theist, Christian in the non-Christian sense of the term, bluffer and lover of Columbo
We'll get to some of that but, first, 'Orthodox heretic' sounds like an oxymoron, or is that a false opposition?
Orthodox is often thought to mean 'right belief', but perhaps it is better thought of as 'right praise'... in this way one can be orthodox while being a heretic... i.e. living in praise while acknowledging that we get God wrong
So to be orthodox, or to be heretic, or to be an orthodox heretic – are these things we should have as ambitions?
Being a heretic is not enough. There are good and bad heretics. One must try to be an orthodox one. A heretic who tries to live in love.
Also, being orthodox is not enough... without acknowledging you are a heretic pride can enter
How can you authentically praise something if you know you might be wrong about what you're praising?
If I fall in love I may not know what would please the person, but I act with the best knowledge I have, & in fear and trembling. certainty is not needed in order to act... love is!
@rhull56 asks 'What convinces Peter that the idea of God is worth taking seriously?'
Philosophers take the question seriously. Not so sure Christians should... Christians should b more interested in Christ-living
Wow... its hard getting big concepts shoe-horned into twitter (good question BTW)
Then perhaps he'd add 'Why Christ?' In the book you adapt Buddhist tales, for example.
Because the life (of Christ) that we read of is a radical one that, if followed, could lead to the continued transformation of society... Christianity, I believe is a radical faith based upon a radical idea. But I think that much of the actually existing churches misses this...
Perhaps only Marxists are as guilty as Christians of misrepresenting their founder
The shoe-horn point: The Orthodox Heretic reminds us that Jesus spoke to uneducated 1st Century peasants. Should all theology be that digestible?
We need to distinguish between theology & the truth of faith. The former is intellectually demanding the later is life demanding. Jesus was mostly about the truth rather than theology.
Not that theology is wrong at all! Its just not true :)
When Jesus spoke of the Father, was that true?
Yes & No. God as a Father 'yes', but as any kind of Father we experience 'no'. This 'yes/no' operates in all theology. It reveals something which remains all the time concealed. Belief should not be read as empirical certainty. Belief is more than this, it involves doubt, commitment, hope, faith and desire
Where does that leave the creeds? The 'We believe'?
The creeds attempt to help re-orient our lives, so that those 'beliefs' become modes of being. We come to live the death and resurrection. When we say, 'I believe in the resurrection' we primarily commit ourselves to becoming the site of new life to those around us. It is not primarily a mere intellectual assent.
There's nothing simple about a fable, but this book is more accessible than the others. What was the thinking behind that?
Buddhism has koans to draw out Enlightenment, we have parables... I wanted to explore this. I think attempting to change how people think is limited. I want to transform who we are. Parables are a mode of doing this.
these fables will get used by preachers. If each reader is the writer, how do we build one united body of believers?
We are unified not by shared belief but by a love and commitment to the same source. Unity in difference. We are often not good at this.
How might that work in practice? Between, say, Bishops Robinson & Akinola?
The creation of suspended space in which liberal & conservative lay down their positions in the liturgical hour2encounter each other. This is the place of 'neither/nor'... neither Jew nor Greek, Gay nor Straight, liberal nor conservative.
It is a participation in the divine Kenosis (see Philippians 2:7: "Jesus made himself nothing...") in which God is emptied of all identity. We do this and take on the identity of Christ.
you suggest that Jesus' teaching was often audience-specific, changing according to context. So was he a moral relativist?
No, he was driven by love. The issue however is that love is not possible to pin down. When we make love concrete we distort love... but we must do this anyway. Love is what drives us, but when we put it in to action it will look different in different contexts
in some tales you, the writer, imagine new words into his (Jesus) mouth. But yet you also warn against personal conceptions of God?
Both under-describing and over-describing are strategies for making sure we do not reduce God to our understanding. The Bible does both. God is given various personalities (warrior, peacemaker, unchanging, changing) & also we are told God is un-nameable.
The point of these parables is not to describe something but to perform something... Parables are a performative discourse
Thanks very much Pete. One final question from @sch3lp: 'What's the dynamic between story, its teller and its hearer?'
hmmm Story is like the child, teller is like the mother and the hearer is like one who adopts the child
---------------------------------
Let me know your thoughts! I especially enjoyed the distinction he made between, theology and the life of faith, as well as the thoughts on belief and certainty.
Showing posts with label emergent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label emergent. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
A Parable by Philip Harrison
As "borrowed" from my friend in Long Beach, Nate Wigfield. Read his blog!
The other day I had a dream. I dreamed I arrived at the gates of heaven, heavy-shut, pure oak, beveled and crafted, glinting sharp in the sunlight. St. Peter stood to greet me; the big man wore brown, smile set deep against his ruddy cheeks.
"You're here," he said.
"I am," I said.
"Great to see you - been expecting you," he smiled. "Come on in."
He pushed gently against the huge door; it swung silently, creakless. I took a couple of steps forward until, at the threshold, one more step up and in, I realized I wasn't alone. My friends had joined me, but they hovered behind, silently, looking on. None spoke. I realized only I could speak. I looked at them; some were Christians, some Hindus, some Buddhists, some Muslims, some Jews, some atheists. Some God knows what. I stopped, paused. A hesitant St. Peter looked at me, patiently, expectantly.
"What about these guys?" I asked him. "My friends. Can they come?"
"Well, Phil," he replied, soft in the still air, "you know the rules. I'm sorry, but that's the way things are. Only the right ones."
I looked at him. He seemed genuinely pained by his answer. I stood, considering. What should I do? I thought about my reference points, and thought about Jesus, and the bastard, the outsider, the unacceptable, the drunkard, the fool, the heretic, the criminal, and I knew exactly where I belonged.
"I'll just stay here then too," I said, taking my one foot out of heaven. And I'll tell you, I'd swear I saw something like a grin break across St. Peter's face, and a voice from inside whispered, "At last."
from Fidelity of Betrayal by Peter Rollins
The other day I had a dream. I dreamed I arrived at the gates of heaven, heavy-shut, pure oak, beveled and crafted, glinting sharp in the sunlight. St. Peter stood to greet me; the big man wore brown, smile set deep against his ruddy cheeks.
"You're here," he said.
"I am," I said.
"Great to see you - been expecting you," he smiled. "Come on in."
He pushed gently against the huge door; it swung silently, creakless. I took a couple of steps forward until, at the threshold, one more step up and in, I realized I wasn't alone. My friends had joined me, but they hovered behind, silently, looking on. None spoke. I realized only I could speak. I looked at them; some were Christians, some Hindus, some Buddhists, some Muslims, some Jews, some atheists. Some God knows what. I stopped, paused. A hesitant St. Peter looked at me, patiently, expectantly.
"What about these guys?" I asked him. "My friends. Can they come?"
"Well, Phil," he replied, soft in the still air, "you know the rules. I'm sorry, but that's the way things are. Only the right ones."
I looked at him. He seemed genuinely pained by his answer. I stood, considering. What should I do? I thought about my reference points, and thought about Jesus, and the bastard, the outsider, the unacceptable, the drunkard, the fool, the heretic, the criminal, and I knew exactly where I belonged.
"I'll just stay here then too," I said, taking my one foot out of heaven. And I'll tell you, I'd swear I saw something like a grin break across St. Peter's face, and a voice from inside whispered, "At last."
from Fidelity of Betrayal by Peter Rollins
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The Great Emergence 0.1
View the first post in this series here.
To give you an idea of where I'm going over the next few weeks, I'll give you a quick outline of the book. Phyllis Tickle starts with a look back at previous religious and social shifts that seem to be occurring about every 500 years, with the most recent example being the Protestant Reformation. She digs into the causes and effects of these turbulent times, and pulls out some common themes then we can then try to apply to the last 200 years of our history. A lot of time is spent on the dramatic changes caused by the Reformation which have lead to the way we all view the world today. She then looks at more recent shifts that are causing the conflict we are all becoming aware of. A good three-quarters of the book is dedicated to building the backdrop for our modern world, and only the final chapters look at where we might be headed. I particularly enjoyed how she examines the movements in American Christianity over the last century, including looking at some of the "proto-emergence" church movements. She then concludes with some guesses at where the western church is headed, which is extremely interesting and exciting.
I just want to also emphasize that the book and this discussion is not about the emergent or emerging church. It's about a global shift that is happening, and the emerging church conversation is one community that is developing as a result of this. But the idea is not that the Emergent Church is the final expression of what God is doing or where Christianity is headed. Listen to Doug Pagitt's thoughts on that here.
I think this is why there has been so much confusion about the emerging church. Everyone wants to finalize it and decide what's right and wrong about it, but it is only one small expression of a much larger phenomenon. And even this small network or people is still figuring out where it is going and why- nothing is set in stone. It's like a young child still years away from adulthood. Nobody knows how this will turn out, which is why the emerging church leaders always refer to their network as a conversation. They want everyone to be involved in what is happening, not a few powerful leaders.
This is a beautiful example of the "priesthood of all believers". We all have an opportunity to seek God about what he wants to do and where he wants to go with his Church. If there are dreams in your heart about what the Church can be, share them so that we all can dream together. If there are ideas that look dangerous to you, speak up, but do so in gentleness and love. If you don't love your brothers and sisters, which is the most fundamental part of being a Christian, how can you offer worthwhile thoughts on more advanced and nuanced doctrine?
Above all, we need to put aside our desire to be right and make sure everyone else knows how right we are. You can't have a very good conversation with people if you only talk to the people who agree with you, or if you will only talk and never listen. You can't love your enemy if you won't associate with the people you have conflict with. How can we say we love the world, like Jesus did, if we can't even love other believers? So please offer your ideas on here, but I ask that you do so with gentleness and respect. I want to talk this out with my friends because I value all of you and know God is speaking to you in ways that are sometimes similar and sometimes different from what he is saying to me.
Finally, I'm going to label all of the posts in this series under “The Great Emergence”, so if you get behind and want to view them all, just click the link of “The Great Emergence” from the list of labels on the right.
To give you an idea of where I'm going over the next few weeks, I'll give you a quick outline of the book. Phyllis Tickle starts with a look back at previous religious and social shifts that seem to be occurring about every 500 years, with the most recent example being the Protestant Reformation. She digs into the causes and effects of these turbulent times, and pulls out some common themes then we can then try to apply to the last 200 years of our history. A lot of time is spent on the dramatic changes caused by the Reformation which have lead to the way we all view the world today. She then looks at more recent shifts that are causing the conflict we are all becoming aware of. A good three-quarters of the book is dedicated to building the backdrop for our modern world, and only the final chapters look at where we might be headed. I particularly enjoyed how she examines the movements in American Christianity over the last century, including looking at some of the "proto-emergence" church movements. She then concludes with some guesses at where the western church is headed, which is extremely interesting and exciting.
I just want to also emphasize that the book and this discussion is not about the emergent or emerging church. It's about a global shift that is happening, and the emerging church conversation is one community that is developing as a result of this. But the idea is not that the Emergent Church is the final expression of what God is doing or where Christianity is headed. Listen to Doug Pagitt's thoughts on that here.
I think this is why there has been so much confusion about the emerging church. Everyone wants to finalize it and decide what's right and wrong about it, but it is only one small expression of a much larger phenomenon. And even this small network or people is still figuring out where it is going and why- nothing is set in stone. It's like a young child still years away from adulthood. Nobody knows how this will turn out, which is why the emerging church leaders always refer to their network as a conversation. They want everyone to be involved in what is happening, not a few powerful leaders.
This is a beautiful example of the "priesthood of all believers". We all have an opportunity to seek God about what he wants to do and where he wants to go with his Church. If there are dreams in your heart about what the Church can be, share them so that we all can dream together. If there are ideas that look dangerous to you, speak up, but do so in gentleness and love. If you don't love your brothers and sisters, which is the most fundamental part of being a Christian, how can you offer worthwhile thoughts on more advanced and nuanced doctrine?
Above all, we need to put aside our desire to be right and make sure everyone else knows how right we are. You can't have a very good conversation with people if you only talk to the people who agree with you, or if you will only talk and never listen. You can't love your enemy if you won't associate with the people you have conflict with. How can we say we love the world, like Jesus did, if we can't even love other believers? So please offer your ideas on here, but I ask that you do so with gentleness and respect. I want to talk this out with my friends because I value all of you and know God is speaking to you in ways that are sometimes similar and sometimes different from what he is saying to me.
Finally, I'm going to label all of the posts in this series under “The Great Emergence”, so if you get behind and want to view them all, just click the link of “The Great Emergence” from the list of labels on the right.
The Great Emergence 0
Everybody seems to be talking about the emerging church lately. I think I've only heard the term in the last couple years, and right from the beginning it seemed pretty confusing to me. My friend Ben introduced me and a few of my friends to Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell in fall of 2005, and I remember how much we all loved it. It wasn't a completely revolutionary approach to Christianity for any of us, it just seemed like it was a clearer picture of what we already were about and where we deep-down wanted to go (and I think that is true, but not the way we thought). I guess we thought of it as a new paint job on the same car, or maybe a tune-up or new tires as well.
Since then I've read it several times and I've realized just how much there is underneath the surface that I didn't get the first time. I think we'd all agree that to follow Jesus, you can't just stick his teaching onto your previous life like an extra arm or new set of clothes. You have to be willing to let everything else go and sometimes start over completely. I think one of the underlying themes of Velvet Elvis is that sometimes Christianity itself has to start over and clear out a lot of the extra baggage it's picked up over the many years. That, of course, is a terrifying idea, because we tend to think of Christianity as the way of following Jesus. But what if the religion that carries Jesus' name becomes one of the biggest hindrances to following Jesus?
I first heard about the emerging (or emergent, but that's kind of different- more later) church through reading and listening to Rob Bell. He always has lots of notes about other books to read and often had guest speakers at his church. And lots of people on the internet had interesting things to say about him and those other authors and speakers. A lot of them were angry about this thing called the emerging church, and said Rob and some of the other people who he was influenced by or was friends with presenting heretical ideas. I think that is a pretty serious accusation to make, so I decided to research this myself. I began studying the Bible more and church history and theology- things that never really interested me much before. This eventually is what lead me to Fuller to study theology.
But one thing I noticed right away is how nobody could agree on what the emerging church was. Some people said it was a Christian reaction to post-modernism, or nothing more than a more relevant wrapping on evangelicalism, or an emphasis on simple living and serving the poor. Some said emergents didn't believe in absolute truth, or the Bible, or Jesus, and had very "liberal" views on homosexuality and abortion. Others said that it was a desire to return just to taking seriously the teachings of Jesus on loving your neighbor and being peacemakers. Is it a new denomination? Is it a movement? Is it a new religion? Is it some kind of new age spirituality that takes some of Jesus and some of Buddha and some of whatever else and mixes it together? Is there a difference between emergent and emerging? And nobody could even agree on who was part of the emerging church. Lots of people called Rob Bell emergent, but he always said he wasn't and that he didn't want anything to do with new labels that further divide Christians into smaller and smaller pieces. Some people said that was enough proof that he was emergent...
This last summer I have been reading a lot of books on the subject. What the so-called emergents say and believe and hope for, and what critics say about them. I've taken little online quizzes that that ask theology questions, and then tell you what percentage Charismatic, Wesleyan, Reformed, Liturgical, Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, or emergent you are. I've read lots and lots of blogs! And I've continually been struck by how consistently the things I've read from many emerging leaders have resonated with my heart. They seem to put words to the things I've believed deep down, the things that I had questions about or often blurry dreams that God has given me. That's been really exciting, but also very unsettling? I've been frustrated with many things about modern American Christianity for a while, and much of what I have learned has given words and form and even theology to this frustration. Is that me wanting to rebel and do things my way, or is it God leading me to trust him more and religion less?
The pieces of this puzzle finally began coming together, and one of the biggest pieces was a book by Phyllis Tickle called The Great Emergence. She is a grandmother, Anglican lay minister, and has worked as a teacher and head of Publisher Weekly's religion department. In this book, she looks at the current events of our world through a much wider view than most usually do and gains a lot of insight into what's really going on. She discusses the earth-shaking changes we've seen over the last 150 years in science, transportation, communication, war, society, medicine, government, and religion. It becomes pretty clear that we are in the middle of something huge. I've heard others say that the current shifts we are experiencing are comparable to the changes of the Great Reformation, but I thought it was a pretty big exaggeration. After reading this book, I wonder if it might be an understatement.
Since this book has been so useful for giving me a bigger and fuller idea of our times, I wanted to walk through it on here so a lot of you who don't have time to read can still get some of the benefit. All the time I talk to friends who feel unsettled and frustrated. The dreams God has given them seem incompatible with the current life they see every day, and they don't know where to go next or why this is happening. I'm realizing it is not an isolated few that are going through this. I hope this series will help explain why they are feeling this way, and where we might be headed, so they can begin to see their circumstances through eyes opened up a little wider.
Since then I've read it several times and I've realized just how much there is underneath the surface that I didn't get the first time. I think we'd all agree that to follow Jesus, you can't just stick his teaching onto your previous life like an extra arm or new set of clothes. You have to be willing to let everything else go and sometimes start over completely. I think one of the underlying themes of Velvet Elvis is that sometimes Christianity itself has to start over and clear out a lot of the extra baggage it's picked up over the many years. That, of course, is a terrifying idea, because we tend to think of Christianity as the way of following Jesus. But what if the religion that carries Jesus' name becomes one of the biggest hindrances to following Jesus?
I first heard about the emerging (or emergent, but that's kind of different- more later) church through reading and listening to Rob Bell. He always has lots of notes about other books to read and often had guest speakers at his church. And lots of people on the internet had interesting things to say about him and those other authors and speakers. A lot of them were angry about this thing called the emerging church, and said Rob and some of the other people who he was influenced by or was friends with presenting heretical ideas. I think that is a pretty serious accusation to make, so I decided to research this myself. I began studying the Bible more and church history and theology- things that never really interested me much before. This eventually is what lead me to Fuller to study theology.
But one thing I noticed right away is how nobody could agree on what the emerging church was. Some people said it was a Christian reaction to post-modernism, or nothing more than a more relevant wrapping on evangelicalism, or an emphasis on simple living and serving the poor. Some said emergents didn't believe in absolute truth, or the Bible, or Jesus, and had very "liberal" views on homosexuality and abortion. Others said that it was a desire to return just to taking seriously the teachings of Jesus on loving your neighbor and being peacemakers. Is it a new denomination? Is it a movement? Is it a new religion? Is it some kind of new age spirituality that takes some of Jesus and some of Buddha and some of whatever else and mixes it together? Is there a difference between emergent and emerging? And nobody could even agree on who was part of the emerging church. Lots of people called Rob Bell emergent, but he always said he wasn't and that he didn't want anything to do with new labels that further divide Christians into smaller and smaller pieces. Some people said that was enough proof that he was emergent...
This last summer I have been reading a lot of books on the subject. What the so-called emergents say and believe and hope for, and what critics say about them. I've taken little online quizzes that that ask theology questions, and then tell you what percentage Charismatic, Wesleyan, Reformed, Liturgical, Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, or emergent you are. I've read lots and lots of blogs! And I've continually been struck by how consistently the things I've read from many emerging leaders have resonated with my heart. They seem to put words to the things I've believed deep down, the things that I had questions about or often blurry dreams that God has given me. That's been really exciting, but also very unsettling? I've been frustrated with many things about modern American Christianity for a while, and much of what I have learned has given words and form and even theology to this frustration. Is that me wanting to rebel and do things my way, or is it God leading me to trust him more and religion less?
The pieces of this puzzle finally began coming together, and one of the biggest pieces was a book by Phyllis Tickle called The Great Emergence. She is a grandmother, Anglican lay minister, and has worked as a teacher and head of Publisher Weekly's religion department. In this book, she looks at the current events of our world through a much wider view than most usually do and gains a lot of insight into what's really going on. She discusses the earth-shaking changes we've seen over the last 150 years in science, transportation, communication, war, society, medicine, government, and religion. It becomes pretty clear that we are in the middle of something huge. I've heard others say that the current shifts we are experiencing are comparable to the changes of the Great Reformation, but I thought it was a pretty big exaggeration. After reading this book, I wonder if it might be an understatement.
Since this book has been so useful for giving me a bigger and fuller idea of our times, I wanted to walk through it on here so a lot of you who don't have time to read can still get some of the benefit. All the time I talk to friends who feel unsettled and frustrated. The dreams God has given them seem incompatible with the current life they see every day, and they don't know where to go next or why this is happening. I'm realizing it is not an isolated few that are going through this. I hope this series will help explain why they are feeling this way, and where we might be headed, so they can begin to see their circumstances through eyes opened up a little wider.
Monday, August 18, 2008
blogs
I finally got around to updating my blog theme. I have spent a lot of time at work over the last few weeks working on blog headers, themes, buttons, and more, learning a lot. So I figured I needed to at least make my own blog look cool again. Yep, more California style, and surprise, Charger colors. Some things never change.
Also, I have been spending a lot of time reading blogs, because it's a great way to stay up with what other people are reading, thinking, saying, and doing. Plus I found Google Reader, an application that makes saying up on blogs really easy. It collects all your blogs in one place and lets you know when they are updated. Some of my new favorite blogs are Jesus Manifesto (subverting the Empire and such), Revolution in Jesusland (politics through an Emergish lense), and God's Politics with Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Phyllis Tickle and others (maybe a little left leaning, but overall a pretty good attempt to engage politics as Christians without choosing sides and attacking the "enemy"). God's Politics has a really strong global focus too. And I can't forget the Showbread and underOATH tour blogs too! You can find links to these and others on the left, and I'd love to know what blogs you read. This is my new favorite hobby!
Also, I have been spending a lot of time reading blogs, because it's a great way to stay up with what other people are reading, thinking, saying, and doing. Plus I found Google Reader, an application that makes saying up on blogs really easy. It collects all your blogs in one place and lets you know when they are updated. Some of my new favorite blogs are Jesus Manifesto (subverting the Empire and such), Revolution in Jesusland (politics through an Emergish lense), and God's Politics with Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Phyllis Tickle and others (maybe a little left leaning, but overall a pretty good attempt to engage politics as Christians without choosing sides and attacking the "enemy"). God's Politics has a really strong global focus too. And I can't forget the Showbread and underOATH tour blogs too! You can find links to these and others on the left, and I'd love to know what blogs you read. This is my new favorite hobby!
Friday, March 16, 2007
vagueness
So I kinda had a brain dump in ideas this morning as I was sitting on the couch talking to God. It was one of those times where there was a constant stream of "I wonder if..." thoughts started flowing, and before I could really start processing that idea, the next was coming. So I threw em down on a sticky note to remember... and then left the sticky note in the car somewhere. So I'm running off memory now...
Discussing Rob Bell's new book Sex God last night with some friends left the impression that he was too vague on certain key points. Was he watering down truth to appeal to a seeker sensitive crowd? Was he trying to provide a first step to get people thinking about those points that they maybe had never considered before? What was his agenda?
After visiting Mars Hill in January (Isn't She Beautiful conference) I don't doubt his motives are pure. He has a high opinion of the Bible and truly wants to find out what Jesus was trying to say. And then the goal is to wrap your life around those ideas- not wrap the Bible around the ideas we already have.
And I think that is where the vagueness comes in. It's actually a trademark of the whole postmodern/emergent/deconstruction approach. The goal is not so much to instruct. The goal is to ask questions.
So when Rob Bell is discussing an idea or passage, he presents what the ideas might have meant considering who said it, who they said it to, and what was going on in their world (to the best of our knowledge). And then he stops. He purposefully leaves it vague. He wants the tension. He wants you to ask "So what does this mean?". The interpretation is up to you. Is this dangerous? Of course. People are rather creative, and you never know what wacky idea someone could come up with. But is it any more dangerous than telling someone what to think? Is it less?
There is always danger when people start to think. But there is probably more danger when they don't. If you are really serious about this topic, you will wrestle with it, study it, think about it, and let God speak to you. You won't get an easy answer, but some things don't have easy answers. Sometimes you have to work out your faith with fear and trembling.
Discussing Rob Bell's new book Sex God last night with some friends left the impression that he was too vague on certain key points. Was he watering down truth to appeal to a seeker sensitive crowd? Was he trying to provide a first step to get people thinking about those points that they maybe had never considered before? What was his agenda?
After visiting Mars Hill in January (Isn't She Beautiful conference) I don't doubt his motives are pure. He has a high opinion of the Bible and truly wants to find out what Jesus was trying to say. And then the goal is to wrap your life around those ideas- not wrap the Bible around the ideas we already have.
And I think that is where the vagueness comes in. It's actually a trademark of the whole postmodern/emergent/deconstruction approach. The goal is not so much to instruct. The goal is to ask questions.
So when Rob Bell is discussing an idea or passage, he presents what the ideas might have meant considering who said it, who they said it to, and what was going on in their world (to the best of our knowledge). And then he stops. He purposefully leaves it vague. He wants the tension. He wants you to ask "So what does this mean?". The interpretation is up to you. Is this dangerous? Of course. People are rather creative, and you never know what wacky idea someone could come up with. But is it any more dangerous than telling someone what to think? Is it less?
There is always danger when people start to think. But there is probably more danger when they don't. If you are really serious about this topic, you will wrestle with it, study it, think about it, and let God speak to you. You won't get an easy answer, but some things don't have easy answers. Sometimes you have to work out your faith with fear and trembling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)