For those of you who have not heard, Rob Bell has publicly endorsed same-sex marriage (if any of you are interested you can find the Huffington Post article here). My interest in this post is to discuss what this could possible mean for the church.
Rob Bell is one of the Christian giants of modern, Christian pop-culture and this is also not the first time that Bell has stepped over the line for many conservative evangelical Christians. Further, Bell is one of the most influence and publicly known Christian leaders today which is a blessing and a curse for the church. In this case I do not want to come out with a stance against Bell. Rather, I want to think about the sort of implications that his endorsement could have on the church. The church can either respond in one of two ways: (1) standing behind Bell and his statement or (2) rejecting Bell and maintaining the current stance it has (this current stance will look different for each individual church).
From my vantage point there is only one response for the church. We must stand strong and maintain our current stance, whatever it looks like. However, this does not imply that we neglect to show the love of Christ. The church is not a social club or political institution. It is the body of Christ. We are to be different. The New Testament (especially Paul's writings) is littered with the idea that Christ's body is called and separate. We no longer act in the ways of the world. Our stances may not always be popular but we are called to be different.
Bell's actual statement is typical to him. Rather than speaking in absolutes he leaves room for interpretation with ambiguity. However, I will not deal with this myself. The following blog deals nicely with Bell's style of communication (see the forth paragraph).
So...what is the take away? We, the church, must be different. We will not (and should not) look like the rest of culture. However, our calling is to meet culture (the world) where it is and move it forward. Those who choose homosexual lifestyles are no different than the rest of us. We are all broken and in need of grace and love.
I think at this point it's too late for Rob Bell in Evangelicalism. Love Wins got Rob Bell kicked out of the evangelical in-group. For those who agree with him, this is further proof that he's progressive and eloquent, and another voice for The Truth. For those who disagree, this is further proof that he's a heretic.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts, darling.
ReplyDeleteSo David are you saying then that you think he's a heretic? If so (or for any that do), my first question would be if you have read the book. My second thought would be that if we would learn to read without a bunch of presuppositions and read with empathy and an open-mind then maybe we would more often learn to see things of value. As evangelicals, we like to think that we have all the right answers and have authority to offer the state of one's salvation. Perhaps we should rethink this.
I think Bilbo said it best:
ReplyDelete“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
Heretic.......Tradition? ONE in the same.
ReplyDeleteReading through this post, I was heavily engaged on the topic of discussion. In order to answer this question, we must first ask the greater questions; To what degree is our tradition inerrant, which leads to the second question; whether or not to follow tradition or currency? In doing so, I believe we can validate whether or not this "accusation", Rob Bell being a heretic, can be verified.
Traditionally, the church's stance on homosexuality has been volatile. Time and time again, the church has been willing to throw out the command to love our neighbor, which is an entirely different discussion to be had, in the hopes of taking a stand against the progression of the culture norms of Gay Marriage. I assert that this stance is not only incorrect, but against the biblical mandate transmitted to us through Paul's work in 1 Corinthians.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul's main concern is to combat the division within the body of Christ, he dedicates chapter 5 to the degradation of this division through sexual immorality. Paul makes reference to a previous exhortation to not even associate or be involved in the world and its sexual immorality. He proceeds in this chapter to take it a step further. According to verses 11-13, the churches mandate is to remove the leaven from the lump, in other words to remove this sin, sexual immorality and other, from within the body of christ. However, he states that it is not the worry, nor the obligation of the church to deal with those out side of the body, but that obligation is to God.
In short, I believe that Rob Bell, according to his statement, does breach the tradition of the church, but is not a heretic, on these statements alone, but that he is appealing to our Biblical mandate. It is not our obligation to stand against this sexual immorality outside of the church. Even further, we are not to associate ourselves in speaking out in this genre or any other genre outside of the body at all, let alone making a stand against it. The problem, in summary is with the church tradition, on this particular stance, not tradition as a whole. In answering the above question, we find church tradition to be heretical, in the sense of fulfilling its biblical mandate.
In response to, David, whether or not you stand behind Rob Bell or you stand behind his adversaries. Rob Bell may be pushing the envelope in the hope of 1 the discovery of truth in the eyes of the church, and 2 to renew the practices to align with this truth. However, as I am not Rob Bell I can not speak on his behalf. Am I in agreement with him, the jury is still out.
This leads me to the real issue, why, as believers are we giving so much attention to these facets of the problem, specific preachers, teachers, writers, etc... ? I believe at the heart of this issue is the practicing tradition of the church, involving itself with the affairs of the unbeliever's moral codes, etc... This is not what the church was called to do, but they were commanded to do the opposite. I believe the heretic in this case is the Church's malpractice.