Last year Rob Bell put out his Love Wins book in which he essentially denies the fundamentally biblical belief that there is an eternal punishment. He denied Hell and basically embraced universalism. It upset the Christian world which rose quickly to point out his errors. Well, one error. It wasn't in line with Scripture. Blogs were written. Reviews came out. Books were published in response. Rob Bell was in trouble for what he said.
Rick Santorum got in trouble last week when he took a stand against redefining "marriage" to include "same-sex". The media has protrayed him as everything from "prickly" to irate to unfair. It was wrong of him to ask "So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people ... so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?" That was wrong, you see. You can't ask about polygamy (or bestiality or whatever) when we're talking about two men. Broke the rules, man! Well, I watched the video, and I didn't see "prickly" except that he argued, "If we're going to have a discussion based on reason, we're going to have to use reason or we can't have the discussion." Yeah, that was really irate. The event has rippled throughout the media and the Internet and Rick Santorum is in trouble for what he said.
When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 including the provision to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial who are suspected of acting against the United States, the mainstream media (MSM) said nothing. Do you know what happened then? Nothing. Nothing at all. No outrage. No upheaval. No one who is loud enough to be heard complained about the position being taken by the MSM. Why? They didn't say anything. You see, for the most part, it's not very often that you get into trouble for what you don't say.
How often do we operate like that? How often do we keep silent so as not to get in trouble for what we don't say? Do you have a stand on abortion that you're not willing to mention because others won't like it? Do you have a view about homosexuals and marriage that you just keep to yourself because "you don't get into trouble for what you don't say"? How often are those around us silent for that reason? Do pastors avoid the tough subjects because they want to avoid trouble? Do your friends not warn you about you doing something foolish because they want to avoid trouble? And, for both myself and for you, we should ask ourselves if it's really better to keep our mouths shut just to avoid trouble. I mean, that's kind of selfish, isn't it?
Update: Good news, everybody! As it turns out, Rob Bell does believe in Hell. He is apparently opposed to God punishing billions and billions of people who never heard the Gospel and adopts a "wider hope" theology that likes to think that most if not all people will ultimately be saved, but he says, "I believe in hell now, I believe in hell when you die." I guess, then, he did not get in trouble for what he said. I stand corrected.
15 comments:
I know what you're saying, man. I get in trouble for what I say/taking a position all the time... sometimes you just wonder if it's worth it.
So, you're encouraging me and everyone to go ahead and make our cases for what we believe to be right, even if it upsets people?
1. No, Rob Bell did not deny hell and "embrace universalism" (like, actually read the book before slandering it). He basically espoused his own spin on the same views held by NT scholar N.T. Wright and the famed CS Lewis ("hell is locked from the inside"). If you want to engage an "evangelical universalist", see the recent writings of Robin Parry/Gregory MacDonald who lays out a solid biblical case (though I do not agree with) more solid than most of the invective I see plastered here and across other fundamentalist, neo-fundamentalist and conservative "literalist" writing.
2. Second, on "biblical marriage", you may proffer your sanitized and twisted interpretation, but any credible OT scholar establishes that "biblical marriage" meant polygamy and women were treated as property (a condition in effect for nearly all of 6,000 years of human history). To banter about definitions of marriage without acknowledging this cultural context is to grope about half-blinded with your own hubris. Jesus, undoubtedly, taught and modeled a different way, but the church and culture did not see, and many still do not get Jesus totally (including myself, even as I ardently pray for direction in how best to follow Jesus). As for Santorum, being a hateful bigot does not advance the Kingdom at all, and worse, stamps the love of Jesus with a pharisaical bent.
Conflict is never fun, and based off the comments left by people on that post you linked, people want to avoid the hate flung back at them. En masse, people don't want to discuss things, and anything said in public becomes an "en masse" response. Just reading 10 of the responses on that post would make most people just be quiet to avoid the hate. Then there's the other side, don't say anything because nobody will listen anyway.
Neither are the right answer biblically, but I'm sure we're all guilty of both at some time or another.
Naum, I said "basically embraced universalism". In normal human conversation, that "basically" is a modifier. It suggests "Rob Bell did not directly embrace universalism ... but it would be a reasonable conclusion from what he wrote."
On marriage, I'm confused. So ... if the "biblical marriage" is, by definition, polygamy, then you would say that the biblical characters who had only one wife were not married? And when Paul commanded that leaders needed to be "the husband of one wife", he was commanding that they not be married? Or could it be that what your describing is a possible practice, not a definition? Some did practice polygamy. At no time, however, did two men or two women marry. Indeed, at no time did anything but one man marry one woman. Sometimes that same man married another woman, but the two wives were not married. One man, one woman. Marriage's definition.
And your hateful bigotry against those of us who disagree with Rob Bell or disagree with your understanding of marriage or those of us who view the Bible as the inerrant Word of God does not advance the kingdom of God. More to the point, I didn't say anything in favor of Santorum. What I said was that he got in trouble for what he said. And clearly I'm getting in trouble for saying that. So, would you suggest I don't say what I believe? (The point of the post.)
Don't forget that Obama also said that he was against same sex marriage. But it didn't matter because everyone knew he was lying.
@Stan:
1. You wrote Rob Bell "embraced universalism" and "denied^Hs hell". But he does neither, if you wish to be honest about the book's contents. And no it would not be a conclusion -- if you read the book, you would know this, unless you already had Bell in your crosshairs and would easily scaffold any argument.
2. You see what you wish to see. Again, in OT, marriage, women were property, just like other material objects. And polygamy was sanctioned. To invent some 1950s Leave it to Beaver marriage scape is to proof-text and profane the ancient text. And if you take the time study and research history and culture and context (which you will not, as you prefer your shibboleths which ironically are only possible in a scientific post-enlightenment world, which no ancient thinker could possibly cognate ) of marriage, you would discover this. At the very least, reread Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and try not to bring your own pre-baked cultural notions into it.
3. What Santorum is doing (and no, I did not even suggest you were a champion of him) is indeed hateful bigotry, plain and evident. And no, I did not call you out for disagreeing with Rob Bell (who I do like, but honestly, if I am going to engage in theology, it's going to be a scholar who's pored himself/herself into it and has at least a good understanding of historiography or ancient history), but misrepresenting.
4. If you take the Bible as inerrant Word of God (which early Christians did not, at least in the sense of post-enlightenment, western civilization sense, at least not like the Koran, where believers there think the words the actual breath of God), it still does not shield you from the truth, it just puts you into a dance where you must twist and dance, to make fit with your cultural mores. In fact, ~2K years of history has illustrated just that, as things once sinful (i.e., interest on loans, even profit making on commerce, eating with a fork, etc.…) are not and things that were once sanctioned (i.e., slavery) are considered a gross affront to following Jesus.
Through a mistaken mouse click, this comment almost got deleted by accident. I managed to save it. It comes from Marshall Art:
The saying goes something like this: "Evil occurs when good men do nothing." or words to that effect. The same can be said when good men say nothing.
The tough part is doing it for the right reasons. That is to say, one guy thinks I comment on lefty blogs just to hack people off. I maintain a desire to counter the falsehoods they proclaim for the benefit of readers undecided regarding the issue at hand. And though it sometimes provokes in me a degree of satisfaction that certain people might be experiencing cranial explosion, it has never been my goal.
1. I'm sorry, Naum. My mistake. I incorrectly thought that since every reliable evangelical Christian who read Bell's book concluded that he denied the existence of hell and "basically embraced universalism" (without doing so in so many words), that there was a problem with Rob Bell's book. My bad. Clearly I am the one in error and all of those stupid Christians didn't have a clue what they were saying. Fortunately, you are able to clear this up and point out how all of the rest are wrong. Or ... wait a minute ... could it be that you're proving my point that we only get in trouble for what we say?
2. Interesting how you didn't answer the question, but instead constructed some sort of strawman fallacy that suggested that I was attributing 1950's marriage practices to the Old Testament. I spoke the first time and in my response to you of definitions, not practices. You continue to argue practices. I asked if you considered those practices definitions and you did not answer. At the very least answer a basic question before you continue to beat your dead horse. (For instance, if you could provide a single reference to a husband that married two wives ... where both wives were married at the same time to each other ... I'd be interested, because my statement was that marriage was always one man marrying one woman, never a man, a woman, and a woman (let alone a man and a man or any such thing). You did not respond. It suggests you have no response and will continue with your pre-baked position that the biblical definition of marriage is the same as its practices (which, if you think about it for a couple of seconds is absolutely ludicrous).
3. Let me say this as clearly as I know how. I AM NOT DEFENDING SANTORUM. Disagree with him all you want. I don't care. Call him hateful and bigoted and whatever you please. My point was that he got in trouble for what he said. You continue to prove my point.
4. "Proving" that the Bible is not a reliable source for faith and practice doesn't help your ends. But, again, it does prove my point about only getting in trouble for what I say, doesn't it?
How is what Naum is saying prove your point, that you're "getting in trouble for what you say..."? It seems that Naum is merely correcting some mistakes that you've alluded to or suggested and you appear to be getting on to him (getting "him in trouble") for what HE has said in trying to take a stand for Truth and Righteousness and God's Word.
From where I stand, brother, it seems like you want to reserve the right to criticize others for their failures, but don't much like it when people do the same for your misstatements. For what it's worth.
Here, let me do a brief synopsis of my post. Let's see if you can get it.
Rob Bell got in trouble for his book on Hell. Rick Santorum got in trouble for his discussion of marriage. On the other hand, no one gets in trouble for what they don't say. Example: The MSM did not get in trouble for not saying anything about the NDAA of 2012. So, do we keep silent and avoid trouble, or do we speak up?
That was my post. Naum decided to correct me on Bell and Santorum (although I am still confident that I didn't make any false statements). Wait ... wait ... my point was "You get in trouble for what you do say." And ... Naum was complaining about what I did say.
Now, I suppose we could spend the next two weeks discussing whether or not Naum and his side is correct regarding Rob Bell's desertion from orthodoxy when it comes to Hell or whether or not Rick Santorum is bigoted because he believes what the Church has always believed about the definition of marriage or I'm right with my disagreement, but that's not the point of the post. The point is "You only get in trouble for what you say." The question was "Should we remain safe and keep silent or should we speak up?" That is not being addressed. For the record, this is what is known as "a red herring". "Let's raise a stink about something unrelated so we can avoid answering the main question."
I agreed with your thesis, Stan, that we OUGHT to stand by truth and make a statement in support of it when false statements are made, in order to correct it. EVEN IF standing up for Truth gets complained about.
I agree with the point of the post.
What was ironic was (and I THINK what Naum was getting at), in a post about standing up for Truth and The Right, you were making false statements; statements which he proceeded to correct.
Rather than acknowledge the correction (from someone who had actually read the book), you complained about Naum's speaking up.
While he was not strictly addressing the topic, it DOES seem to be a very direct object lesson in support of the topic of the post.
If you support people standing for Truth, then it would seem you would thank Naum for the correction and for HIS standing for Truth (and since you haven't read the Bell book, you'd HAVE to defer to his firsthand knowledge or say, "hold on, let me read it and I'll get back with you on this...").
I'm just saying, this seems to be directly applicable to the point of the post. It would be as if someone preached a sermon on the importance of telling the Truth and, in the sermon, told lies as examples for his sermon on Truth. If a person listening to the story were to correct the false statement, it would seem the pastor would PRAISE the person for getting the point of the sermon, not chastise him for being off-topic.
Dan Trabue: "you were making false statements; statements which he proceeded to correct."
I'm wondering, Dan, on what basis you make this statement. Here's your statement reworded. "Stan was wrong. Naum was right. Naum was simply trying to correct Stan." On what basis do you make this claim? I sided with every major conservative commenter on Rob Bell's position. Naum sided with every major liberal commenter on Rob Bell's position. Naum was right; Stan was wrong. I didn't even make a claim as to the veracity or value of Santorum's comments, but Naum "corrected" me and Naum was right and Stan was wrong. On what basis? And then we drifted into the veracity of Scripture. I sided with the historical orthodox position of Christendom and Naum sided with modern liberal theologians and Stan was wrong and Naum was right. On what basis?
Still, you think I should be celebrating that Naum has carefully and cogently corrected my erroneous thinking ... without offering a single basis for thinking that he was correcting and I was wrong.
Stan...
On what basis do you make this claim?
On the basis that he has, you know, actually read the book in question and you have not.
For what it's worth though (and on topic), I'm NOT saying Naum is correct in his assessment of the book (I have not read it and don't know). I'm saying that Naum HAS actually read it and, being in a better position to know than someone who has NOT read it, HE BELIEVES you to be falsely representing Bell's position and, TAKING YOUR ADVICE, he has stood up for Truth and corrected you.
As stated, it is an object lesson directly in support of your post here.
Stan, paying heed to your commentary, I would ask: do you think that Naum OUGHT to correct false statements when he reads them and knows them to be false?
Your "ON WHAT BASIS?" question IS a very good one, and one that we should keep in mind. In this case, I'm not saying Naum is right, only that he is following YOUR advice.
You're funny, Dan. When I say, "God says ..." based on what I read in Scripture, you correct me. "You can't say that God says that if He didn't actually say that!" When Naum says, "Rob Bell believes ...", however, that is acceptable, even courageous. You don't suggest, "You know, Naum, you should be saying 'In my opinion Rob Bell did not deny hell..." Funny stuff.
Do I think Naum should shut up? Not at all. Is this helpful to the concept of the post? Not at all. Disagreeing with me over Bell or Santorum or marriage or Scripture doesn't address the point of the post. Nor is it helpful to label everyone with whom you disagree as "half-blinded with your own hubris" or "a hateful bigot". Oh, now maybe that could help the discussion, as in "When you do stand up for truth, don't do that!"
Stan...
When I say, "God says ..." based on what I read in Scripture, you correct me. "You can't say that God says that if He didn't actually say that!" When Naum says, "Rob Bell believes ...", however, that is acceptable
Sort of an aside, but just to address this: The difference would be that we can ASK Rob Bell, "What did you mean?" and get a clear answer. Rob gets the chance to clarify his writings.
God is taking no such opportunities to clarify the writings we believe inspired by God. Instead, we have a bunch of believers (and not) saying, "Wait, I KNOW what God REALLY meant..." and then them offering their opinions as if they speak for God.
Myself, I prefer to state clearly that this is MY OPINION when I speak of MY INTERPRETATION of the Bible, rather than to presume to speak for God. Seems wisest to me.
Anyway, the short answer is, the difference is, Rob Bell has the opportunity to clarify what he meant and we can presume that Bell knows better what he meant than even 100 conservative thinkers, EVEN IF they have read his book.
Agreed?
so, looking to Bell's clarification, he says...
“I believe in hell now, I believe in hell when you die,” stated Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich. “I believe God gives people the right to say no, to resist, to refuse, to reject, to cling to their sins, to cling to their version of their story.
“So the Bible, there’s a whole chapter in the book about hell, and I think we should take hell very seriously. I think it exists, and so, there being no hell isn’t something that I believe.”
So, it would appear, given that we CAN get a clarification from Bell, that Naum is right and you made a misstatement. No problem, just admit it and move on. That is how correction should work. Naum has given you the chance to back up and say "oops," and admit a mistake.
It's all good.
And that's the difference between what Naum did and what you've done.
Post a Comment