Calling All Rob Bell Fans

I have to apologize. The title of this one is a little misleading. I am actually looking for someone to defend Rob Bell for me. I recently read through his book Velvet Elvis with some friends. I would say that 80-85% of the book is good stuff. The material included in that 80-85% is not incredibly innovative, though some of it (such as his chapter on hermeneutics/interpretation) is good stuff that ought to be talked about in popular circles more than it is.

Now despite that large chunk of good stuff in Velvet Elvis one major problem seems to plague the work leading it to an overall thumbs down in my account (There is another issue I have with his theology, but we'll leave that out of this post). One of Bell’s major stumbling points is his irresponsible use of scripture. I only double checked a couple of the passages that Bell used in this book, but in that small sample (probably less than half a dozen citations) I found two clearly mistaken interpretations. These weren’t muddy things that are debated about and disagreed upon, but the passages are very clear as to their meaning.

The first case was in his use of Matt 16:18. This is where Jesus calls Simon by the name of Peter (Petros in Greek, which means rock) and then says in the same breath, upon this rock (Petra in Greek) I will build my church. It is so clear here that Jesus is giving Simon the name which means rock and then saying upon this rock (referring to Peter) Jesus will build his church.

However, Bell lays out some interesting historical information about the local inhabitants worshiping goats on a cliff and then says that the 'rock' Jesus is referring to is the cliff on which these people worship goats. Bell’s interpretation is that Jesus is saying that his church will be built out of people like these goat worshipers. Yes, many of the disciples were not the cream of the crop and yes, Jesus reached out to people considered unclean and outcasts, so it is safe to say that those kinds of people will make up a part of the Jesus community. However, that is not what Matthew or Jesus is saying here. All of his historical work is for not because he failed to take a close enough look at the text itself.

The other example is from John 17:21, “You are in me and I am in you.” Bell takes that to mean that Jesus is in the believer and the believer is in Jesus. What Bell misses is that Jesus actually says, “You, Father, are in me and I am in you...” This is clearly about the unity between Jesus and the Father and is a part of a passage on the unity of the church. This particular quote is not about the dwelling of God in the believer. The text leaves virtually no room for doubt. Yes, God dwells in the believer, but that is not what this quote is saying… at all.

Now Bell could have looked at the next few words and verses and quoted one of those that actually talks about believers being in Jesus and about being in believers, but he he didn't. Even if he would have, I still wouldn't have been totally comfortable since the passage is about unity amongst Jesus followers and not the transformation from old person to new person of the believer which Bell is using this quote to support.

These mistakes seem huge and a result of oblivious scripture selection, where Bell was not looking to see what the text meant, but looking to find some words in the Bible that he could use to communicate his own thoughts. I don’t mean to be too harsh on Bell, but I was astonished to discover these kinds of errors made by someone who commands such a large audience. If anyone can see validity in his interpretations of these passages I would enjoy some discussion on it.

My Religion is a Religion or Yes, I am Religious

Everyone (that includes you) ought to read this blog post titled, Me and Jesus Broke Up. It inspired me to write my thoughts in the following post.

It is a common belief among 21st Century Protestant Evangelical American (and maybe non-American?) Christians that being a Christian is not about being a part of a religion. This view creates a distinction between religion and relationship with God and claims that the difference between real Christianity and all (other) religions is that real Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus and not religion. I have to admit that in the past I have held onto this view and used this vocabulary, but I have since repented and embraced the word 'religion'. Let me explain why.

A claimed distinction between religion and relationship with God is a false distinction. Religion is essentially your approach to God/god(s)/the spiritual realm. Some approaches to God/god(s)/the spiritual realm involve much intricate and formal ceremony while some are almost completely informal. However, whether your approach to God/god(s)/the spiritual realm is formal or informal, ceremonial or casual, it is still how you relate to God/god(s)/the spiritual realm. And thus we might even be able to say that religion is (or at the very least informs and involves) your relationship to God/god(s)/the spiritual realm. (Sorry for the annoyance of the repeated "God/god(s)/the spiritual realm" phrase, I just wanted to be all inclusive and accurate)

So when we say that following Christ is not about religion but relationship, I think we are saying something almost nonsensical. In fact, I think it may be arrogant and demeaning to people of other religions. We can't claim epistemological superiority by claiming that we have somehow transcended religion, because we haven't transcended religion and that is not a bad thing. My relationship with God is the central component of my religion, not the abolishment of my religion.

When I used to say following Christ was about relationship and not religion, what I really meant was that my religion is about a grace-filled intimacy with God, not a merit-based and distanced relationship to God. If this is really what we mean, than we should use a vocabulary that more accurately communicates this without claiming to have transcended the entire religious dialogue.