This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world.
So, what then is the "gospel"? If the gospel is defined in scripture, then the Nooma videos would need to portray that same gospel (as defined in scripture) if that is indeed their creator's goal.
And, how do you put the gospel "in a format that fits our world"? The gospel is the gospel yes? It is a stumbling block to the jews and foolishness to the gentiles.
You may want to take a look at this: Maheney on Bell. Please do click on the link concerning Greg Gilbert's critique.
j razz
In reply to your comment, the Gospel is the good news. This is good news for the future and for now. People don't have to live the way they do. They don't have to have no hope and no relationship with their creator (and in turn others).
The Gospel is not just "the gospel." People don't preach the same way people preached in the 1500s. Certain things about the Gospel can be highlighted depending upon the times. In the past, avoiding hell was a major part of the Gospel message. Now, it would be more a "this-worldly" highlight. What we're really talking about is the way the Gospel is communicated. That changes, but the kernel of the message doesn't change. This format that I'm referring to is just an adaptation to current worldviews. What if I said, believe in Jesus because the infallible pope says he is real? The worldview that the pope is infallible has largely been discarded, so we don't use that method. The "modern" worldview is outdated as well. Bell's message is a stereotypical (I don't mean that in a negative way) postmodern method to transmitting the Gospel. The Gospel is a lifestyle. It's seen in the lives of both Jesus and his followers. It's validated by the Cross. The Cross is meaningless to the individual that doesn't know what sin is in the first place. And that is why the first place Bell goes to in getting the good news across is to show the "better way" demonstrated by Jesus. I certainly feel this is a "looser" thing than I'm comfortable with. There is no easy-to-see conversion moment. There is no "confess your sins" moment. I've always watched the Noomas with the belief that this was something that could follow. I didn't watch them thinking "but you didn't close the message out with an attempt to convert." It's a non-threatening door-opening message that hopes people will respond and maybe eventually convert. It's a different philosophy which will reach people that others would have never reached.
I know you don't know me nor I you. Be rest assured my goal is not to pick an argument for argument's sake. My goal is to glorify God through our communication in hopes that He may be exalted above any man or method; that His gospel may be seen for what it is: man's only hope. So, when conversing with me, please do not assume I mean anything I say as a jab towards you as that would not be conducive to the end I have stated above.
...the Gospel is the good news.
Okay, so what then is this good news? I just want you to repeat what scripture says the gospel is.
The Gospel is not just "the gospel."
Does scripture support such a statement?
People don't preach the same way people preached in the 1500s. Certain things about the Gospel can be highlighted depending upon the times.
Is the issue here really stylistic in nature? We are not discussing topical verses expository; we are concerned with the content. Is Bell staying true contextually to scripture? Is what he portrays as being the gospel what scripture portrays as being the gospel?
As for certain portions of the gospel being highlighted depending on the historical frame in which it is portrayed, where does this idea come from? Let's say I grant you that for arguments sake, is that what Bell is doing or is he redacting portions of the gospel as if they were never there? If the latter be true then is what the hearer/watcher is left with really the gospel?
This format that I'm referring to is just an adaptation to current worldviews. What if I said, believe in Jesus because the infallible pope says he is real? The worldview that the pope is infallible has largely been discarded, so we don't use that method.
Was that ever a reason to believe in the gospel of the Christ? The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. How can one be saved unless they hear? The gospel is what saves, not method, not the vehicle we attempt to package it in, the gospel alone by the power of God. Methods are man's way of trying to compartmentalize the salvific work of Christ into a presentation that ultimately places more faith in the delivery (and deliverer) than in the gospel itself.
The "modern" worldview is outdated as well.
I think one would be hard pressed to prove the above statement. It is hard to even get a consistent definition of postmodernity let alone to prove that modernity is in its final throes. Let me encourage you to take a look at a book by Craig M. Gay called The Way of the Modern World.
The Cross is meaningless to the individual that doesn't know what sin is in the first place.
Great point. I always thought that explaining the need for Christ necessarily required an explanation of sin yes?
It's a non-threatening door-opening message that hopes people will respond and maybe eventually convert. It's a different philosophy which will reach people that others would have never reached.
John Owen would have called it a method that promotes ideology that is severely lacking a center based on soteriology but focuses instead on a substitute that is rotten at its very core. If you have not yet read The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen in all of your studies, I would hope that you would not delay in picking it up. it is well worth the read. He seeks to combat the false gospel of the Belgic Semi-Pelagians and puts forth compelling scriptural arguments.
As for the gospel, I would uphold and agree with the view stated here.
j razz
Thank you for your post Chad. As I have stated before and you have here, there are a couple issues where Rob is questionable - but he is not a bad minister. I don't understand how anyone can form an opinion based on a single book, when there are so many other avenues of learning what he truly teaches.
He is a good teaching minister, whom I sometimes disagree with. Can't ask for a whole lot better than that from a mere human.
Thanks for the detailed reply. You will have to forgive me. I read your post on my cell phone. I will reply first thing in the morning when I'm sitting in front of my computer and I can dig in to what you wrote.
Post a Comment