Anticipating Love Wins

I saw about a week ago from a facebook post Rob Bell is releasing a new book. Justin Taylor, a well known Reformed blogger, kicked off with a rather controversial blog about a controversial book by one of the most controversial pastors in America. I couldn't see the video of mention that many pastors have took full aim and depending where you stand either jumped the gun or addressed an important issue without haste. This is not about my speculation from Rob's video; it is rather hard to make an informed comment on a video I haven't been able to watch.

I have read all of Rob Bell's books thus far and I will read Love Wins. I don't read him because I particularly agree with what he writes, I read his writings because they reach audiences I am very concerned about. Like a parent taking an interest in their kid's video games or sports, when my students read a book you better believe I will read it too, if nothing else to discuss it regardless of content. I read his first book, Velvet Elvis, in an attempt to gain an understanding of the Emerging Church at the time. I continued to read his books when I learned a number of students read his material as well.

What have I gathered from Mr. Bell's writing until this week? He is one of the most gifted speakers I have heard. He is very creative in how he presents ideas and can quickly grab an audience through empathetic tone and genuine concern. On the other hand, in Velvet Elvis especially he proposed dangerous ideas but in his likeable fashion, those ideas we presented in a non-confrontational "just think about it" type of manner. I have yet to hear any response or clarification from his claims in Velvet Elvis. He does not need to answer to me by any means, as a pastor and teacher he is already held to a higher standard. I got to a point; whenever people discuss "What I think about Rob Bell" all I can say is "be careful". His roundabout speaking/writing style in combination with his rhetorically styled questions which offer no clarification can push people in a very dangerous direction without a firm foundation in scripture. This was where I was two weeks ago.

I cannot comment on what I have not read, what will be in Love Wins. Thanks to a recent blog post by Kevin Deyoung I can comment like Kevin did, on what Rob did say.

"Will only a few select people make it to heaven? And will billions and billions of people burn forever in hell? And if that’s the case, how do you become one of the few? Is it what you believe or what you say or what you do or who you know or something that happens in your heart? Or do you need to be initiated or take a class or converted or being born again? How does one become one of these few?

Then there is the question behind the questions. The real question [is], “What is God like?”, because millions and millions of people were taught that the primary message, the center of the gospel of Jesus, is that God is going to send you to hell unless you believe in Jesus. And so what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that Jesus rescues you from God. But what kind of God is that, that we would need to be rescued from this God? How could that God ever be good? How could that God ever be trusted? And how could that ever be good news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith. They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies and they say, why would I ever want to be a part of that? See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like. What you discover in the Bible is so surprising, unexpected, beautiful, that whatever we have been told and been taught, the good news is actually better than that, better than we could ever imagine.
The good news is that love wins." - Rob Bell, Love Wins Trailer

As an example of Rob's speaking style in the trailer Kevin makes a comparable "video" to demonstrate Bell's speaking style in his Love Wins trailer. In Kevin's example he asks a series of rhetorical questions which don't sound like questions nearly as much as "just consider this" and continuous flow of "what ifs" strategically placed that one gets the sense these are statements, not questions. I read a number of the comments to Kevin's blog, one of the more frequent objections to Kevin's assessment of Mr. Bell's speaking style is "not to jump to conclusions solely based on a two minute video".

This is where I chime in, because unlike many of the commentators in Kevin's blog, I have read all of Rob's books. The speaking style from this video excerpt is one of Rob's hallmarks. He speaks the same way he writes. Rob will pose controversial questions to long held doctrinal beliefs and leave it at that, he opens the door to question what has been established as orthodoxy theology and does not develop the pseudo-claims any further.

I am reminded of parts in Velvet Elvis when Rob questions the necessity of the virgin birth of Jesus in just the same fashion as these lines of questions seem to imply Universalism. Perhaps the scariest thing that came to my mind as I read the text from the video, I was reminded of a section in scripture when similar speaking occurred. It was the conversation the serpent had with Eve... I am not saying I believe Rob Bell is Satan. I am saying the manner in which he writes/speaks and the content behind that may sadly be satanic. I hope I am wrong, but I will have to wait until the book is released to see what is truly said.

Biblical Gender Roles: Headship vs. Domination

Among my deployment goals, at least for the duration of the deployment, one has been to write more regularly. Clashing with my desire to write something of substance with a decent frequency has been my understanding or at least growth of my understanding of the given topic I wish to share about. Most recently I raided John Piper's online book repository and have had a more fruitful use of my time. I recently finished Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (BFMW) and promptly continued on with Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood(RBMW).

When I started reading the first book I was expecting it to talk about masculinity and femininity from scripture. I was thinking something along the lines of John Eldridge's Wild At Heart or Way of the Wild Heart. While it did address masculinity and femininity, the focus was much more specific: defending the complimentarian (gender roles do exist within scripture, such as male headship, pastor/elders, and the sort) view and responding to the egalitarian (gender roles do not exist within scripture and there should be no difference in the manner men and women approach God or each other) view. The topic of gender roles in the church is not one of the most popular topics. In all fairness, I don't think I have ever sat through a sermon addressing gender roles, at least not in person. I have listened to a number of sermons which the gender roles were addressed from time to time but not in detail that would compare with this material. I have read 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5-6, Titus 2, a number of times. Until a few weeks ago, I never read any articles/essays concerning the Greek text in those verses, or really exploring these topics in depth. Frankly, I was rather unaware of the research and doctrinal implications of these two views. Don't worry I won't attempt to condense the 400 pages I've read so far on this topic into this blog. I wanted to narrow in on what I noticed as a prime issue at the heart of this debate.

The first point I noticed, which has been a bit of a recurring theme among Christian debates, was the immediate approach to scripture. How does each side approach the scriptural support, lack of support, or silence regarding the topic at hand? Did one group tend to focus on arguing from experience vs. scripture? How did they go about trying to address a difficult or culturally unpopular instruction? Did the denial of one non-essential view overflow to a greater essential doctrine peril? One of the variables which make Christian debates particularly easy and painful at the same time is that no matter what, both sides need to rely on Scripture to have any ground. I say easy and painful because many arguments in the secular world cannot come to a solid starting point, yet painful because there should not be such levels of dissension regarding clear teachings of scripture. One side or another often finds themselves judging God's Word instead of humbly approaching it seeking to understand its mystery and submit to its authority.

The second point of controversy within the discussion of gender roles is the misunderstanding of domination compared to headship. Domination is the embodiment of might-over-right, overbearing, abusive, much of what defines popular culture's idea of masculinity. Instead of domination being regarded as the enemy for what it is, masculinity at large was assaulted. Men were told to be passive teddy bears that didn't hurt anyone, their feelings, or to even have a desire to inflict hurt. Some men laid down their masculinity by abdicating their roles as leaders, protectors, and providers. Other men sprinted into the other direction to become dominating womanizing thugs, who disguise themselves as gentlemen because they wear a suit. The modern man has been in crisis to define himself. Domination works for many men as a sense of identity because few women can compete in that arena. The fruit of domination expressed further expressed itself in violent crime, abusive attitudes, and general disregard of others. I would never attempt to defend justification for domination as it is the epitome of immature masculinity. This is the target of reference which egalitarians hone in on to destroy, and for good reason. I have yet to read and I don't expect to ever hear a scriptural defense for a dominating attitude. Headship is the embodiment of mature masculinity, one of my favorite sections of verses in Ephesians 5 describes headship. Christ is to his Church as a husband is to his wife. An excerpt from RBMW which also hits home:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships...A man might say, “I am a man and I do not feel this sense of responsibility that you say makes me masculine.” He may feel strong and sexually competent and forceful and rational. But we would say to him that if he does not feel this sense of benevolent responsibility toward women to lead, provide and protect, his masculinity is immature. It is incomplete and perhaps distorted.

“Mature” means that a man’s sense of responsibility is in the process of growing out of its sinful distortions and limitations, and finding its true nature as a form of love, not a form of self-assertion." -pg 29

I recall some students in the high school group picking my brain on the infamous "woman submit" theme found in Ephesians 5:22-24, my response was twofold. One, a man not dare quote verses 22-24 without including 25-33, to do so is not only incomplete to the context of the text but it can lead one to wrongfully think scripture rubber stamps a dominating attitude, yet it immediately gives instruction to the husband on how to love his wife. I found it interesting that the instruction of submission, an action, for which men are more typically action-oriented was given to the wife. While love, an instruction of emotional-orientation, was given to the husband.

Christ perfected headship by his sacrifice, leadership, and love. This is to be the example that men are to follow that we might be mature men. I'm not saying to be mature Christian men, this is just to be a mature man. Because this is what it means to be a man, how much more should we look to the men in the Church fulfill this role in an exemplary manner?