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.
TSB VIII
9 months ago
9 comments:
hey man. good to hear you engaging thoughtfully with bell. we need more people doing that since many are reading him!
first, i completely agree with you on bell's expansion of what counts as sexuality. i was rather disappointed that the book really doesn't address a theology of sex or sexuality as you would normally expect for a good chunk of it. and i, too, found his connection of sex to separateness somewhat confusing. however, i do not think bell's work suffers your critique re: creation, since he is addressing a fallen sexuality. [nor do i necessarily think one would need to think him using john hick...and interesting you didn't say, 'irenaean theology of maturing creation'! ;)].
further, i do suppose bell could counteract our critique of his expanded use of sexuality by saying we need a bigger picture of sexuality, but it's still misleading. (nice critique with the mountains joke, btw.)
second, i do not agree that bell writes syncretistically. you are quite right to point out his language of divine spark and chanelling, but those words do not necessarily contain the concepts you apply to them. in speaking of a divine spark, bell does not have in mind secret knowledge known only to a few, and his section on animals and angels should dispel any concern one has for him degrading the body or elevating the 'spirit.' and bell is not condemning desire (as with buddhism), but encouraging redemption of desire.
i think your critique could be slightly altered to be about bell's 'shock' words, which i think 'divine spark' and 'chanelling' are intended to be, much like when he preaches about other virgin birth myths (which is true) and other gods resurrected from the dead (which is false).
happy reading!
Derrick and I have been on a Driscoll kick (sharing the reformed doctrine and all) the past few months. We're even looking forward to visiting Mars Hill (his church) in Seattle. If you have iTunes definitely subscribe to his video podcast. Awesome stuff. Anywho... here is a link of Mark Driscoll explaining the difference of the emergent church and emerging church. I just watched it last night. Pretty good. It's the first link under "Mark Driscoll". Let me know what you think.
http://www.desiringgod.org/Events/NationalConferences/Archives/2006/Videos/
If you are into reading sex books (haha) another good one is Sex and the Supremacy of Christ by John Piper. You can find it on www.DesiringGod.org.
AP, I do not think Bell is intentionally teaching a gnostic theology and I'm sure he doesn't think that this "divine spark" is a secret knowledge. Otherwise, he wouldn't have told us about it.
Where I see the gnostic theology in the use of the term "divine spark" is his definition of it being "something of God in us". Here it seems Bell is equating God's attributes with God. Whereas, I would be emphatic that God is God prima facie and his attributes are simply descriptors of how we perceive or understand God. Thus my being contains a spirit, yet I do not , necessarily, have God within me. Just as my ability to swim underwater does not make me a dolphin or mean I have something of a dolphin within me.
My primary concern with his use of these terms is his readers who may not be aware of his reconstruction of terms would take them in their religio-cultural (I just made that word up, why confuse old terms when you can make up new ones)context and do what it seems Bell is beginning to do at a superficial level
hey dave,
thanks for responding.
specifically, how do you see Bell equating God's attributes with God's essence? I hadn't thought of this. Perhaps with your help I will see what you have in mind on future a re-read.
But even then, if you're concerned about the gnostic heresy, then an attribute of God that is separate from God that is in us seems to be the perfect way to avoid gnosticism. The divine spark is much more substantial and essential in gnosticism than simply a divine attribute. It is literally part of God. If Bell is seeing divine attributes put into humans, then he is part of a long Christian tradition--including Wesleyans--who believe that we can become like God, being like him in love.
Let me see if I understand your main concern: People will start using Bell's language (e.g., divine spark, channeling), unaware of its theological history, and perhaps start using them uncritically?
AP, my concern is in 1 part that Christians will misuse or "expand" the meaning of terms so that when we are in dialog with others we maybe using the same term but with two different concepts of the term resulting in different implications. My other concern is that Christians will uncritically accept the teachings of gnosticism and Zen because they use the terms "divine spark" or "life force". The mentality of "my pastor uses those terms so they must be right".
I think I may not of clarified what I see as the theological implications of Bell's use of "divine spark" meaning "something of God in us".
What I see this "Bellian" theology implying is that their is "a piece of God in us". He's clear that he does not think we are God, or will ever become God, my question, however, is "how can we have the essence of God within us without God being fully in us and if this essence is ontologically us then how are we not God? In addition, how is the omnipresent God able to divide his infinite nature into measurable "somethings" and place them in us? This seems to very easily degrade into panentheism or pantheism.
My perspective is that we God did not place place "something of himself" in us, but created us in a manner that reflects him we have attributes that reflect God , but we do not have God within us (until after salvation, in which we have the fullness of God in us, while our beings remain distinctly separate from God".
Btw: I agree that Hick does base his theodicy on Irenaus. What I see in Bell's writing, though, seems to be heavily influenced by Hick's "Soul making".
Nicole: Derrick & u should go see to Mars Hill on Nov.11 like me. Our young adults are going down for church in the morning and staying to hear Rob Bell when he speaks on his "The gods aren't angry tour".
BLAST!!! 1. We won't have enough $ saved by then. 2. I won't be able to travel that far into my pregnancy. Let me know what you think of it. Are you going to his service or one of the other buildings?
That sucks! It would have awesome to see you after umm....(2007 subtract 2003) 4 years. I'm planning to go hear Driscoll speak in the morning and then Bell in the evening. So whatever building they are in that's where I'll be.
Ya know if you go ALL THE WAY to Seattle, I'm only 2 hours away. So let me know when you're coming and I'll try to come down and meet you or you can keep coming to Canada.
Don't you think though that Bell might be trying to explain God to those who do not use the typical "churchese"?
I have more of an issue with some of the things he teaches than I do with the words he uses. I still think Bell's good outweighs his bad though.
Shawna, Like I said he does deserve credit for attempting to present a balanced approach to sexuality.
I do think we need to present the Gospel in the language of our culture. However, I think there is a great danger in adopting the language of other religions, because of the baggage those words bring and the doors of heresy it opens. I would much rather he invent new words than use language like "divine spark" or "channel your life force".
Also, when we broaden the meaning of a term we dilute the terms ability to communicate an idea and when we broaden it as Bell has done, we dilute it's meaning to the point of being meaningless.
Post a Comment