RobBELLion

My current read is Sex God by Rob Bell. I picked it up after several people recommended it and because of his reputation for using Scripture more than other members of "The Emergent Church". As one who feels there are some issues we, as The Church, have shyed away from I thought I would be strongly encouraged by a book addressing God and sexuality. However, as I began to read, excitement turned to concern. Two major concerns and critiques rose to the surface of his writings.

The first is the presence of syncretism in his writing. Six chapters in I have found at least two prominent instances where he attempts to incorporate other religious beliefs into Christianity. As he writes on what it is for man to reflect God (Imageo Dei) he claims "...something of God has been placed in them (people)...A divine spark resides in every single human being" (p.19). The term "divine spark" is a cardinal term of gnosticism, which Christians through the ages have branded as heresy. A further critique of this is the seeming equating of God's attributes with being God. There needs to be an understanding that his attributes are not what make God God, but God is God and the attributes are merely descriptors of what he is like.

The next evidence of syncretism appears in Chapter 4. As Bell addresses the use of our passions he states, "Life is not toning down or repressing your God-given life force. It's about channeling it and focusing it and turning it loose on something beautiful (p.83, italics mine). Channeling is a verb that can be used in my facets, but when it becomes combined with the term "life force", it becomes clearly connected with Zen Buddhism.

Along with his use of sycretism Bell expands the meaning of terms until they essentially have no meaning. His use of the words "sexual or "sexuality" which is foundational to his book gives the clearest example. He claims that the word "sex" comes from the Latin word "secare" which means "to severe, amputate or disconnect from the whole"(p. 40) . He then explains how this is the root of words such as sect, bisect, section, and a few more. It's interesting that "sex" is the only word he cites that ends in "x", whereas the others end in "ct".

According to Bell's definition, sexuality means "First, our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we're cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect" (p. 40). In applying the term he refers to swimming in the ocean with his son and dolphins as being a sexual experience because they were truly connected to creation. For those who think this is appropriate application of the term, I challenge you to go ask someone of the same gender to go into the mountains for a "sexual" experience. I doubt the two of you have the same thing in mind.

I also find it interesting that God created us as sexual beings (Gen.1:28) and as two distinct sexes (Gen. 2:27). All of this God did before the fall (literal or metaphorical). Thus, if God created us as sexual and with distinct sexes then we were created as separated from creation, and thus experience the effects of the fall from "the beginning". Bell alludes to a Hickian "soul making" theology when he interprets Genesis 1 as being God creating out of "chaos" rather than "formless" and "void" so I doubt he would have a problem with this.

To Bell's credit he does attempt to approach sex and sexuality in a balanced approach. While I agree with the overall message he communicates, the roads he travels are through the sinking sands of heresy, rather than the roads of orthodoxy.

In Spring of 2006 Criswell Theological Journal contained an article by Mark Driscoll entitled A PASTORAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE EMERGENT CHURCH. I strongly suggest finding it and reading it to better understand"The Emergent Church" and it's distinction from the emerging church.