aThinker's Faith

The internet is abuzz with the fallout from Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. I have not read the book, and I will not likely have the time to read it in the near future, but Bell gave an interview that can be found here:

<http://www.livestream.com/lovewins/video?clipId=pla_9997e760-b88d-4294-91a8-142e5ed1c619>.

This interview outlines what I understand to be the book’s basic philosophy. I must say at the onset that I don’t believe he is saying anything that hasn’t been said before, and because of that fact, I don’t expect the attention that this work is receiving now to last for a long time. However, the worldview that Bell is presenting is an expression of post-modern thought that is important for today’s Christian to understand thoroughly. Many Christians will respond by calling Bell a heretic, (which in the concrete traditional sense is probably true, but in common use it just means that one is having a negative emotional reaction to what is being said) but the question that is important, (and will remain after the book has made its way to the discount store shelves) is why? Why is Bell wrong? What ideas are at play here that we can challenge in a reasonable manner? The following are a few of my own observations based upon the interview that Bell gave.

First, as I’ve already said, Rob Bell’s worldview is drenched, dripping, and in fact reeks of postmodernism. Without an understanding of this fact, it is very difficult to understand what he is doing. Because of the postmodern view of language as lacking any inherent meaning, it is easy to stumble into a rhetorical minefield of assumed definitions and redefinition when talking to a person who is influenced by postmodern ideas. Clearly, definitions of words have always been tricky, and most people have experienced the misunderstandings that can happen if two people in a conversation are unwittingly using two different definitions of the same word. However, in the postmodern world, there are people who are masters of exploiting the meaning of terms. For example, in the previously mentioned interview, the question is raised, “Is there a real Hell?” Bell answers “yes.” (Collective sigh of relief that he has not forsaken the orthodox view) Then, however, he continues to describe Hell as the bad experiences that humans face in life, which is a statement that he does not in fact believe in Hell. Additionally, though most people understand the difficulty of some meaning being “lost in translation,” postmodernists tend to almost completely deemphasize the author’s intent when interpreting language. This allows a person to completely reinvent crucial Scriptural concepts. Hell becomes our collective bad experiences on earth, redemption becomes man understanding what it means to be authentically human, the broad path that leads to destruction becomes the tendency of man to be noncommittal to relationships, and God’s justice is his final act of telling people that they can’t do naughty things anymore – the list goes on. A postmodernist can use the same terms, speaking and sounding just like a traditional evangelical believer, and in fact be saying things that are completely at odds with Scripture.

Secondly, postmodern thought deemphasizes the importance of truth. (Actually, that’s being nice. Most postmodernists deny any such thing as objective truth) Since there is no truth, there really is no falsehood, only different ways of saying the same things. Christians are not then to proclaim “truth” as much as “have conversations.” In his interview Bell makes the statement that every voice is important. The problem is that some voices are in fact blathering incoherent foolishness. We cannot assume that the fact that everyone has a voice implies that every voice is valid. Truth is the only coherent value by which to judge any claim about reality, and therefore sometimes it is necessary (with a humble attitude) to identify those claims which “just aren’t so.”

So, why are people like Bell so popular, and how do we answer them? First, I think that part of the reason that his message resounds with so many people is that it does in fact touch upon some problems that have plagued the evangelical church in the United States. This physical world does matter in ways of which we often have not thought. Though it is wrong to imply that the main idea behind Jesus’ coming to earth was humanitarian relief, the church has an often neglected its mission to “care for the orphans and widows.” Man is created in God’s image, and there is an inherent value in ministering to that image. This value is present, I believe, even when our message falls upon deaf ears, though it is our desire that everyone understand the Gospel and believe. The conversational aspect of postmodernism also touches on a mistake that many have made in their presentation of the Gospel. All too often, we throw “canned answers” out rather than answering the genuine specific questions that people do have. We should listen so that when we do speak we are talking to the person, and not our preconception of what the person means to say. In this way, we can present Biblical truth in way that is personally meaningful to an unbeliever. Finally, I think it is of the utmost importance for Christians to examine their terminology. We need to habitually practice scrutinizing terms like salvation, grace, faith, heaven, hell, hope, love, sin, etc., to know what they mean in light of Scripture. If we put in the effort and train ourselves to think in those terms, when a person comes along like Rob Bell, we can ask intelligent questions to draw out hidden assumptions and definitions, and we can make a strong stand against falsehood which leads so many astray.