Yesterday, Joe took a crack at the hot topic of the day, Rob Bell’s new book. Among other things, he quotes Al Mohler, praising Mohler’s willingness to “defend orthodox evangelical doctrines against the gooey New Age-ish mush that is creeping into our tradition.”
Then he ends with this:
Mohler points out that liberal Protestantism and Catholicism have come up with their own ways of resolving the scandal of this doctrine. That’s fine. I have no beef with those traditions. My concern is with those who claim to be evangelicals while advocating or teaching a doctrine that is inconsistent with evangelical theology.
As Mohler notes, “there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical.” He’s right. You don’t have to be an evangelical to believe in hell, but if you stop believing in hell then you’re probably no longer an evangelical.
That doesn’t quite work. It sounds like Joe’s problem isn’t that Bell is selling the public “gooey New Age-ish mush,” but that he does so while claiming that his wares are “evangelical.” I mean, if Bell announces tomorrow that he’s going to stop calling himself an evangelical, would his teaching suddenly no longer be gooey New Age-ish mush? What Joe is really doing here isn’t vindicating truth but policing the boundaries. Sell all the mush you want, but please, let’s have truth in labeling.
Moreover, if you accept Mohler’s characterization of liberal Protestantism and Catholicism, how can you not “have a beef” with them for accepting an attitude that, when it appears within evangelicalism, you call “gooey New Age-ish mush”? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!
Of course, one need not accept Mohler’s characterization.
In fact, I think it puts us on the wrong track to raise these boundary issues at all. Mohler raises them precisely because he wants the fight over this doctrine to be a fight between evangelicals and those outside. His thinking seems to be that evangelicals have the truth, except insofar as they are corrupted by outside influences. As he says:
Have postmodern westerners just decided that hell is no more? Can we really just think the doctrine away? Os Guinness notes that western societies “have reached the state of pluralization where choice is not just a state of affairs, it is a state of mind. Choice has become a value in itself, even a priority. To be modern is to be addicted to choice and change. Change becomes the very essence of life.” Personal choice becomes the urgency; what sociologist Peter Berger called the “heretical imperative.” In such a context, theology undergoes rapid and repeated transformation driven by cultural currents. For millions of persons in the postmodern age, truth is a matter of personal choice –- not divine revelation. Clearly, we moderns do not choose for hell to exist.
This process of change is often invisible to those experiencing it and denied by those promoting it. As David F. Wells comments, “The stream of historic orthodoxy that once watered the evangelical soul is now dammed by a worldliness that many fail to recognize as worldliness because of the cultural innocence with which it presents itself.” He continued: “To be sure, this orthodoxy never was infallible, nor was it without its blemishes and foibles, but I am far from persuaded that the emancipation from its theological core that much of evangelicalism is effecting has resulted in greater biblical fidelity. In fact, the result is just the opposite. We now have less biblical fidelity, less interest in truth, less seriousness, less depth, and less capacity to speak the Word of God to our own generation in a way that offers an alternative to what it already thinks.”
This is why he thinks it’s so important to draw a bright, shining line around the evangelical church:
Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have modified their theological systems to remove this offense. No one is in danger of hearing a threatening “fire and brimstone” sermon in those churches. The burden of defending and debating hell now falls to the evangelicals–the last people who think it matters.
There are two problems here. The first is that the “I choose what’s true” mentality created by modern pluralism is not something that invaded the evangelical church from outside. It’s a tendency that’s intrinsic to life in modern civilization. I’m a huge fan of modernity – I think it’s tons better than what came before – but the great unresolved problem of modernity is that we never figured out how to reconcile a shared, public moral order with freedom of religion. And human beings are formed by the civilizations in which they’re raised, so all of us are in part a product of that failure. We’re all carrying its effects around inside us. We are its effects. So you can’t fight this thing by isolating yourself.
The second problem is that the bright, shining line blocks influence in both directions. Of course, for some people that’s a feature, not a bug, but I don’t think Mohler is one of them.
Obviously I don’t claim to be able to resolve the unresolved contradiction at the heart of modernity – still less to be able to do so in a blog post - but I think the starting point is this. Mohler is right that truth is the real underlying question here. So why not forget all about the boundary questions and stick to the only question that counts: is Bell teaching truth or falsehood? If it’s falsehood, why not just point that out?
I notice that in fact neither Joe’s post nor Mohler’s article actually presents a defence of the doctrine. A person who didn’t believe it before reading these pieces would find no reason to change his or her mind. Would it be too much to suggest that our obsession with policing the boundaries is taking us off topic here?
If boundary questions must arise at some point, let that point come much further down the road, and let it be treated with the subordinate importance it deserves.
March 10th, 2011 | 6:43 pm
Well put. In my view, one of the signs that theological priorities are out of whack in many conservative evangelical communities can be found in the many doctrinal statements that place a view of scripture at the top of the list of doctrinal affirmations. Before God. When a statement about inerrancy precedes your doctrine of God, the wheels have come off.
I suspect the placement of inerrancy at the top of doctrinal affirmations at many conservative evangelical colleges/universities goes hand in hand with putting boundary policing before genuine theological investigation. I read Joe’s original piece as an attempt to avoid the great question presented by universalists—a question that for the most interesting of them flows directly from the character of the God made known in the person and work of Jesus Christ—as attested by scripture! But rather than hear them out, rather than attend to *their* reading of scripture (after all, Hans Urs von Balthasar knew a thing or two bout the Bible), rather than actually read and engage the book that Bell has written, one simply throws the yellow flag and shakes one’s head.
March 10th, 2011 | 6:52 pm
You are right, Greg. Thank you for pointing this out.
March 10th, 2011 | 9:26 pm
It sounds like Joe’s problem isn’t that Bell is selling the public “gooey New Age-ish mush,” but that he does so while claiming that his wares are “evangelical.” I mean, if Bell announces tomorrow that he’s going to stop calling himself an evangelical, would his teaching suddenly no longer be gooey New Age-ish mush? What Joe is really doing here isn’t vindicating truth but policing the boundaries. Sell all the mush you want, but please, let’s have truth in labeling.
That seems to be a peculiar reading of my post. Pointing out that it bugs me that Bell is promoting an unbiblical concept under the guise of evangelicalism does not mean that I’d be fine with it under other labels. I certainly never implied that he could “sell all the mush” he wants as long as there is truth in labeling.
Moreover, if you accept Mohler’s characterization of liberal Protestantism and Catholicism, how can you not “have a beef” with them for accepting an attitude that, when it appears within evangelicalism, you call “gooey New Age-ish mush”?
But we are talking about two entirely different concepts. The characterization of Mohler’s that I agreed with was that those traditions have “removed the offense” of the doctrine. While that is troublesome, it is not the same as downright denying the doctrine, as Bell appears to be doing. Downplaying the doctrine of hell is not nearly the same as saying that hell doesn’t really exist.
So why not forget all about the boundary questions and stick to the only question that counts: is Bell teaching truth or falsehood? If it’s falsehood, why not just point that out?
Because that is not the only question that counts. Boundary questions matter quite a lot. If Depak Chopra says that everyone goes to heaven, it is a falsehood that needs to be rebutted. But if Billy Graham were to say that everyone goes to heaven, it is not only the false claim that needs to be rebutted but also the idea that the claim is consonant with Christianity.
Would it be too much to suggest that our obsession with policing the boundaries is taking us off topic here?
Yes, I think it would. Because the topic was not whether the doctrine of hell is true, but whether evangelical ministers should be going around denying Biblical teaching under the guise of orthodoxy.
March 11th, 2011 | 4:47 am
“Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have modified their theological systems to remove this offense. No one is in danger of hearing a threatening “fire and brimstone” sermon in those churches.”
Hogwash. While it is certainly more rare than it used to be, if one knows where to look such sermonizing can be found.
March 11th, 2011 | 8:22 am
Pointing out that it bugs me that Bell is promoting an unbiblical concept under the guise of evangelicalism does not mean that I’d be fine with it under other labels.
Has Bell’s book been released yet? So far, I have seen exactly one review from someone who claims to have read the whole thing, and he writes that Bell is not a universalist and does believe in Hell.
March 11th, 2011 | 8:53 am
Nickp: Technically, Joe’s post was discussing a promotional video plugging the book, rather than the book itself. It’s fair to discuss the video before you’ve seen the book; especially in the present social landscape, where it’s likely that the video will matter as much as, if not more than, the book. I probably should have mentioned that in my post.
March 11th, 2011 | 9:03 am
Joe: I probably could have been clearer in my post that I don’t really think you’re OK with the teaching of falsehood as long as it’s done outside the church. I was trying to highlight the distinction between the two types of question (truth and boundaries) in order to make the point that you were talking about boundaries when I think truth is the more important issue.
And I shouldn’t have said that whether Bell’s teaching is true is “the only question that counts.” What I was trying (unsuccessfully) to express was that the question of boundaries is subordinate to the question of truth. You’re right that “whether the doctrine of hell is true” is one question, and “whether evangelical ministers should be going around denying Biblical teaching under the guise of orthdoxy” is another. But you cannot address the second question unless you begin by defining what is and isn’t “Biblical teaching.” In other words, you must address the first question before you address the second.
I haven’t made any kind of effort to systematically look through all the public responses to Bell’s video. So let me ask – not rhetorically but from a genuine desire to know – has anyone responded to it with a scriptural defense of the doctrine? If not, doesn’t that show our priorities are out of order? Shouldn’t it be our first priority to explain why we think Bell is wrong? After all, if Bell is leading people astray, are they likely to be helped back into the narrow path if our response to his teaching is limited to “if you believe that, you’re not one of us”?
March 11th, 2011 | 9:06 am
Charlie: Well, I don’t know about that. There are other justifications for putting the doctrine of scripture first. Where do you get your doctrine of God, and how do you test it to see if it’s true? Personally I think it’s a matter of indifference whether we put God first or scripture first, because in practice they’re coordinate. If you really wanted to make a big deal of this issue, I’d favor starting with two columns running parallel. :)
March 11th, 2011 | 9:43 am
What exactly IS “evangelical theology”, anyway? Is it one of those “I know it when I see it” things?
March 11th, 2011 | 10:48 am
“Hogwash. While it is certainly more rare than it used to be, if one knows where to look such sermonizing can be found.”
I’m having trouble understanding how the places where one might look for such sermonizing could still reasonably be liberal. Fire and brimstone sermonizing, but only if it fits with the Jesus Seminar and works for you?
March 11th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
Greg: I know that there are reasons given for such things, but I don’t find them compelling. Just to take a random sample after searching for a bit on the internet, take Huntington University’s “Statement of Faith” that all faculty must subscribe to. It is creedal in form, and the first entry is “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”
Only after professing a belief in the Bible does the statement move to a profession of faith in the Trinity. The Bible before God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I think this is a profound mistake, and a basically Protestant one. And surely the manifold divisions among Protestant denominations that presume they know “what the Bible says” before the truth question is engaged demonstrates how problematic this sort of move is. It certainly hasn’t worked to secure the unity of the Body of Christ, despite what “the Bible says” about that (cf. John 17:20ff).
The Word of God did not become text, but flesh. And this didn’t happen in the pages of Scripture; rather, the pages of Scripture attest to it’s having happened in flesh and blood, in real time, and in a real place. By all means, let us affirm the importance of the Scriptures as containing the faith handed down by the apostles. But putting an affirmation of faith in the Bible before everything else is surely symptomatic of the problem you’re trying to diagnose in this post.
March 11th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
i’ve been roman catholic for eight years and not once have i heard a homily on hell.
come to think of it, there’s only been one time i’ve heard a homily on the “darkness of our hearts.” i remember being quite surprised — i was on a trip to canada.
but most of the time, it’s as if dr. phil is at the pulpit, blabbing away on pop psychology dressed up as “the word of god.” how much do you want to bet that this sunday’s homily at my home parish is about “being nice?”
so joe is correct. i, for one, am not in any danger of hearing anything other than oprah channelling at my local catholic church.
March 11th, 2011 | 11:20 pm
“i’ve been roman catholic for eight years and not once have i heard a homily on hell.”
For which reading do you think a homily on hell would be appropriate?
Second, while the doctrine of free will mandates the necessity of hell, who among would presume to say that anyone is there now, let alone a specific person?
But, while we’re at it, what percentage of the homilies of the Fathers were devoted to hell?
What is your opinion of the doctrine of Apokatastasis as proposed by St. Gregory of Nyssa?
And finally, excessive emphasis on this subject has a nasty tendency of creating the impression that the object of Christian life is to avoid major sins and stay out of hell. Is not the true objective of Christian life to become sharers in the divine nature, becoming by grace what Christ is by nature?
March 24th, 2011 | 10:20 am
[...] yet so difficult, for evangelicals. For a century we seem to have been oscillating between isolationism and uncritical assimilation of the world’s sin-rigged agendas. We need to figure out another [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact