Bell goes through the effort of explaining that faith is something that all people have. We are all following some kind of teaching which means we are following "somebody." He implies that those who approach someone of faith in God in a cool, rational way is implicitly denying that they have faith. This is a false dichotomy. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive propositions. Also, Bell is dismissing the rationality of the opponent in an ipso facto manner, the person of faith is not absolved of defending it rationally just because the person arguing with them has some form of faith of their own. Again, the question is about internal consistency of a given belief because beliefs require a different criterion to be deemed warranted than knowledge. There is no logical problem with a person having issues with faith, even if they don't a faith of their own. Additionally, someone may reject what they were taught and actually go in the opposite direction, not in the equivocal sense or even in an analogously direct sense, but just live a life different from which those who would seem to have been influential. For example, some who were raised in Christian households may have great respect for their parents but are tripped up by theodicy and thus answer the question with Atheism, their overall life experience is contributing, and sometimes even internally competing, for answers to questions. I agree that everyone adopts assumptions and beliefs, but faith is not always about following someone, they have experiences and thoughts as well. Are they now following their parents teaching? You may be able to make a case that they are indirectly, but for Bell, to follow is implying faith and not rationality, this is not entirely the case. As my illustration demonstrates, it may be rationality that actually contributes to their beliefs more than those one would expect them to follow. So, Bell's effort to dismiss rationality, or at least minimize it, from the conversation over faith is unfounded and it will become more clear why he wants this to be the case in short order. He does explain that some have a perspective that they are following their own ideas, but concludes that they are wrong, they are following someone or something no matter what they say. It is typical for him to tip his hat to "something" late in the conversation, his premise has been about following someone. Remember: he has to cover his bases. Some people are following ideas and I assume he would say those ideas are formed by consensus. My question would be, then what is Christianity? Is it not more than ideas? Is it not more than a communal commitment passed down to condition others? If not, then it is one of several options, then, by all means, repaint away, for it could not be the truth, at best it could be a possible truth. But if it is the truth, then argue for it as the truth. I believe it was Jesus who said he was the truth (which Bell quotes shortly). By the way, he was completely different from those who should have conditioned him. The fact is, ideas are far more complex than mere communal contribution and conditioning, they involve static, a priori logic, and sometimes there indeed is a give and take involving culture and community, as bell says himself, but does not see fit to apply to his own arguments, "there is more." Post-modernists don't believe in truth, so in this regard Bell has been consistent. Bell makes the question "Who is living rightly?" and puts it against the question of "who is right?" The real question, the one Bell is avoiding at all costs, is: what is the truth? This is the only question that really matters. Christianity is not merely an existential philosophy as Bell supposes. It is an answer to the ultimate question, it is the truth, because he is the truth. Which do you want, a way to live a good life, or the truth? If Christianity is only a way to be "in sync with the universe at its deepest levels [pg.21]." and not the truth, then what are we doing here? To be fair to Bell, perhaps he is trying, in his own way, to say its the truth, but there is a rational element which he is dismissing (again, he has his reasons which he will make clear). When I was an agnostic I was looking for answers, not a new lifestyle, the answers would determine my lifestyle. This nominalizing of reason is typical of faith leaders who come from a weak position. I believe he recognizes that his position is weak in the face of skeptics, and he's right, so he does what someone in a compromised position usually does, he obfuscates by appealing to a enigmatic mysticism and uses question laden verbiage ("universe at its deepest levels," what in Jar Jar Binks does that mean?), additionally, as he has done already and will do again in the next section, I'll be discussing his attempts at red herring by padding his side of the argument with moral fervor to make opponents seem morally misguided when attempting to critique his position. These are the attributes of a weak argument and the summit of Bell's reasoning. A point that I will make continually in my critique is this, does Rob Bell's attempts to convey the Christian message that is reflective of the authors of the bible? Is he really biblical? Does he have an apostolic attitude toward matters of faith? I will quote one verse here and let you decide for yourself if Velvet Elvis is of a godly effort, Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool."
He attempts to say that the way in which one lives is not a matter of rationality or blind faith, it is just an existential reality that one must deal with. One must ask how he has arrived at the conclusion that there is a way in which one ought to live? I can tell you one thing, it is not merely a way and that is all, he got there by reason, and don't look now, but he is offering a cool, calm rationality about the way in which one should live. He expects his list to be self evident in regard to this being the way in which one ought to live: generously, forgivingly, compassionately, peacefully, wisely, and honestly. Of course these are admirable qualities. With his red herring deployed he can effectively shut down conversation as one is distracted by avoiding looking like a barbarian. The idea is that if you can be the first to be on the side of these attributes then your opponents may have to appear to be opposed to them. Who wants to be opposed to that list? Not me, I want to take part in all of those things as well. So do many Atheists that I know. In fact, many can take part in them even if they don't follow Jesus, so why include the list? It is advantageous to his argument. Bell claims that this is not about being superior to any other religion, rather it is part of a process that makes one more in tuned with reality. Cannot anyone say that they have done these things? At least at some point and to some degree? And is not a legitimate question from the skeptic at this point something along the lines of, "I don't believe that there is a God or Jesus and I do these things as part of my lifestyle, so, of what advantage is Jesus to me?" Bell's argument seems to be a refurbished version of "Only Christians can do good things." He just doesn't say it in so many words. Without a teleological or eschatological direction to good works they are fairly benign, Jesus offers us something beyond good works, they are good works with purpose. If there is no God one can do preferable works, how is Christianity any better if there is no way to actually do good works in the eyes of God? So Bell has gotten the cart in front of the horse. In light of the holiness of God no works are considered good, there must be a payment for sin before one can offer a good work that leads to an ultimate good conclusion, salvation is tethered to good works and reveals God's righteousness. Is this the position of the bible?
-Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."
Salvation is found in belief, not in works. This serves as a good caution for trying to change or "repaint", as it were, what is expressed so clearly.
-1 John 1:8-10 "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleans us of all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
If we deceive ourselves in regard to sin, then we make him out to be a liar. How is this possible? If we lie then he is not in us so how is it possible that we would make him out to be a liar if he is not in us? Is that not a contradiction? No one can come to saving faith unless he fist confesses he has sinned. No amount of good works can replace that. So all of Bell's moralizing doesn't replace the problem of sin. A believer, one who is truly saved, must logically confess that they are a sinner to begin with. They would not dismiss this fact if they were a believer, for their hope is based on a need, the need of salvation from an outside source: God's righteousness. So, if they have come to that understanding then why would they say they don't sin? They wouldn't and that is John's point: they wouldn't. If they ever do they have not known what God has offered on the cross.
-Psalm 14:3 "They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does goo, not even one."
-Isaiah 64:6 "We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment."
Paul picks up on Psalms and demonstrates that no one can say they are really doing good. They may do things one would call good, but nothing good enough to warrant righteousness in the eyes of God who is the perfect judge. So what of Bell's contention that Jesus' ministry was meant to be followed to be in tune with the universe? It seems painfully short of what the bible actually teaches. We are in tune with our natures which is to sin and when we see that, then we can become in tune with God, until then we deceive ourselves. I am always leery about the prophets of altruism because while it is possible to do things that can be seen as good, if we say we are doing good enough, then we become the judge and we are dismissing our own sin. Experience tells me that all sin and as one I consider a mentor says, "It speaks to the bible's authenticity." (if your interested in looking at the bible's analysis on sin as revealed in the world read Romans 1 and I offer a commentary on this in my Faith Class section called "Faith Class: Already and Not Yet").
-Romans 5:6-11 "For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation."
This passage basically says it all. I believe that Rob Bell is misguided and distorts the beauty of the gospel when he says that the virtuous acts of Jesus are meant to bring us into harmony with the deepest levels of the universe without mentioning sin. He offers an incomplete picture that could easily lead one to believe that it is the virtuous behavior itself that accomplishes the goal he is setting out. Only after one comes to Christ can a virtuous life be properly lived out. Keep in mind the word "proper" anyone can and has done the virtuous thing Rob Bell listed, but not anyone can do them with the correct teleology, that can only be done by someone who knows they are not good to begin with. I find it ironic, like many truths.
So I must disagree with Bell that the question is "Who is living rightly?" Because the skeptic will raise his hand and say "Me," or even maybe, "By faith I believe its me." Remeber in the introduction I mentioned that if you start trying to refine the foundations of a worldview those changes make it suseptable to attack? Now that Bell has changed the question to one of how one ought to live rather than God's demands (which is the question the bible is more concerned i.e. Nicodemus) someone could say "Well, it seems a dictatorship could make one live this way," or, "Islam seems to get pretty good results in this regard." Remember when I mentioned a misguided plurality? A better question would be, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" or "Compared to God's holiness can anyone be good?" And, as predicted, Bell appeals to a mysticism, "Over time when you purposely try to live the way of Jesus, you start noticing something deeper going on... [you live] more in tune with ultimate reality. You are more and more in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels [pg. 21]." Try to argue that one! This is the fallacy of stacking the deck (recurring theme), no matter what you do you will prove him right, deny what he is saying and the enigmatic "deeper" goings ons don't happen and the ultimate reality is locked away so you prove him right, Live the way he is saying and what ever happens is the "deeper" happenings of the universe being realized. What separates his argument from Buddhist enlightenment? Was this really the focus of Jesus' ministry? Ahh, yes, remember when Nicodemus came to Jesus and said, "'Rabbi, we know you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly truly I say to you unless one is convinced of being generous, forgiving, compassionate, and what not, one will not be in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels.'" If that sounds ridiculous then good, it means you know your bible well, what he actually said was completely different from Bell's teaching (Bell did not misquote this passage I am demonstrating the absurdity of his claim),
John 3:1-3
"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus , a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.'"
Wait, what about the being in sync with the universe? Well, the truth is, Jesus and Bell are at odd ends. They do not offer the same message to an unbelieving world. Bell has more in common with Descartes than Jesus. Sure, he talks about Jesus, but as Bell will point out later in Velvet Elvis many will come saying that and it won't be true. At this point I imagine Bell's defense would be that change is necessary for this generation and I would respond that if the arguments he provided in the introduction are exemplary of the foundations for the need to change, I'll stick with the bible. Ironically the bible speaks of sin offering a revelation about God as well. So if coming in tune with the deepest nature of the universe is what is so important could not sin accomplish this? Revelation for its own sake is not as important as what revelation says about us as we are related to God, not uncovering the "deep" happenings for the sake of doing so. So while I find the list of virtues compelling they are being misused in their representation of Jesus. Did he do these good things, yes. Should we take part in them, yes. But they are not a means to an end. In fact my idea for a dissertation topic (although it could be more sociological history rather than philosophy) has to do with eudaimonia and its subconscious resurgence among American Christians and their leaders. Velvet Elvis would be a fantastic case study about this subject. Eudaimonia was about having the objectively best human life (human is mentioned specifically because of the gods in the Socratic era). The debate of the time predated Christ by about 400 years during the time of Socrates. The question was whether the best life required virtue (among which Rob Bell lists as if they were exclusive to Jesus teaching, they weren't, he exclusively embodied these virtues showing us that we cannot live up to them on our own) or if virtue was a hindrance to a best human life. In the midst of the debate were these gods whom were disengaged, morally, and left humans to figure this out for themselves. Modern Christians who are now becoming more and more ignorant to biblical truth claims have engaged in a similar debate. How is the best way to have the best life as a human? Has God spoke in this regard? I have listed versus in which he has and the eudaimonistic question becomes a non sequitur in light of biblical revelation, but when elements are deemphasized (like sin and God's intimate response) God appears disconnected. Almost like Deism. Humans, in turn, must determine for themselves what is the best way to live. With vestiges of the Christian ethic remaining in the American conscience they begin to appeal to them, without God's revelation concerning sin and/0r his intimacy in our lives, as the best way in which to live as opposed to seeing them as a mirror for who we are compared to God, which is what Jesus' ethics were intended to do (Mark 12:28-31 "And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."). And so you end up with modern pithy sayings like this, "we are all living a 'way'."; "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who lives rightly?"[pages 20 and 21 respectively] So Bell bookends his argument with the eudaimonistic question. But the bible isn't interested in getting you to live rightly before you recognize that you can't live rightly and as a result you must repent to an intimate God. American Christians are now debating how to live, not for God, but for themselves. They don't include morality to honor God they do it to live a good life (if you have read Socrates that question should sound familiar, its the essence of his eudaimonistic stance compared to the Stoics and Sophists right around the time he pwnes them, in my opinion anyway) or to get to heaven or to get in tune with the universe at its deepest levels. I used to think this way myself so I have no room to judge others in this regard but I'll take a page from Paul's play book and quote one of our contemporary artists, "I did my time, and I want out..."
In the midst of this, Bell offers scraps of scripture as proof text. In the process, he embodies hypocrisy. In chapter 2 he will talk about a conference about the male being the head of the household and then criticize them for taking the scripture out of context (which he offers no evidence for being the case, I will deal with this further when I get there). In his argument from virtue he takes two passages of scripture out of context. Let us see Bell's hermeneutical process, hope you like Conventionalism (Reader Response Criticism). This is Bell's exposition of John 14, from page 21 of Velvet Elvis (VE):
"Jesus' intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality. He said at one point that if you had seen him, you had 'seen the Father'. He claimed to be showing us what God is like. In his compassion, peace, truth telling, and generosity, he was showing us God [pg21]."
Later:
"Jesus at one point claimed to be 'the way, the truth, and the life'... he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality [pg.21]."
Let us now look at the text and I will be taking Bell's criticism of using context from chapter 2, which he failed to deploy here, as it would have applied to himself.
John 14:1-11
"'Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.' Thomas said to him, 'Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?' Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.'Philip said to him, 'Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."
Where is the list of virtues that were showing us what God is like? Looks like the last thing Jesus is concerned with here is his display of goodness as it reflects God. Rather, he seems interested in letting his disciples know that he is the one preparing the way. Of course I am using that ancient practice of actually discovering the author's intentions. Not in vogue in Bell's world, but the only way to arrive at the meaning of the text in the real world. This passage is infused with eschatological realities that should be trusted. It is not a text intended to show how one should live "in tune with reality" as much as its about how the return of Christ should shape our understanding of our current reality for the one that is coming. Not following x list of virtues as a "better way to live". I want to reiterate that the virtues Bell lists are good but they are not the means to the end in which Jesus was primarily concerned, Jesus is the means to an end and in that we will find good living, not good living to follow Jesus. Again, Bell has "put the cart before the horse."
No comments:
Post a Comment