There's been a great deal of hubbub in the blogosphere about Rob Bell's new book recently. Sadly, it says little about Rob Bell's desire to examine and question orthodox views on Hell and says tons about the "faith" of those criticizing him. For the record, I haven't read his book and have no idea whether I'd agree with his views or not, but I have to admire his courage to publicly put a major sacred cow of Christianity in play as he searches for truth. The larger issue is the level of insecurity and hypocrisy that this has revealed in much of modern mainstream Christianity.
I'm sure that all of Bell's harshest critics would fervently claim that they believe salvation to be only through the sacrifice and grace of Christ, but, as far as I can see, they don't really believe that at all. Their response to simply the knowledge that Bell's book exists (they haven't read it) suggests they believe in Jesus and...______. In their case, apparently, to be a true Christian, it takes Jesus and Hell.
God help us all if our witness of Christ needs Hell to be communicated. God help us if our faith is merely a means to escape "the world" in this life and Hell in the next. I mean, do you teach a child not to kill another because it's wrong or because they might get the death penalty?
In the various discussions of this around the interwebs, the word "doctrine" is used liberally - false doctrine, sound doctrine, orthodox doctrine, essential doctrine, non-essential doctrine, and just plain ole doctrine. I've nothing against the word, but I think we need to have a solid grasp on what doctrine meant for the Christian church in the bible. While the Greek and Hebrew words translated as doctrine generally mean "teaching(s)", we've given the word considerably more widespread weight than, let's say, Paul did. When Paul referred to doctrine, he was speaking of ONE thing - salvation through Christ crucified (1st Corinthians 1:17, 21-24, Galatians 1:6-9). Everything else was ancillary and, quite often, simply a matter of opinion, culture, circumstance, what have you. Paul became distressed when people would change his simple gospel of Jesus into "Jesus and..._____."
We often hear people speak of the "noble Bereans" (Acts 17:10-11). They were indeed noble. However, to use less than noble language, it bugs the crap out of me to see the account of the Bereans SOOOO terribly twisted and misused. The Bereans weren't searching the scriptures to find out if women should have a covering, remain silent in the church, men should provide umbrellas, tithes should be taken, et cetera. Not a single drop of the NT canon even existed at the time. They were searching the OT passages that dealt with the promised Messiah to see if Paul's simple message of Jesus Christ was true. No more. No less. But, strange things happen when people Imbible and their Godhead becomes a quartet - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Holy canonized Bible.
And, if I may chase a rabbit for a moment...Another verse that I see misused, abused, and used to abuse, 2nd Peter 1:20. It's talking about OT prophecy, people! Not scripture in general! If someone uses this verse to tell you that you can't have a personal or private interpretation of a particular passage, something in one of the NT epistles, or even of 2nd Chester 4:55, they're misusing the scripture - period.
Now, back on point...
In Great Satans, I asked some questions at the end, one of which was, "If you need a Hell to exist, what does that say about your Heaven?", and another, which I feel is extremely important, was "If it weren't for Satan, would you still cling to Christ?" What I hoped this would inspire was self-examination. Is Christ enough for me? Do I need A for B to be valid? Is Christ really enough for me? Is my hope and salvation in Jesus alone, or is it in Jesus and...______?
Take a look at the groups I write about. Some prominent people within these movements have personally communicated to me their displeasure with my portrayal of their religious beliefs, claiming that they aren't legalists, that they believe in salvation through Christ alone. I simply don't believe them. They don't present a simple gospel of Christ crucified. I see more of the following to varying degrees...
Jesus and... rigid adherence to gender roles.
Jesus and... a quiverfull of children/no contraception.
Jesus and... homeschooling.
Jesus and... emotional purity.
Jesus and... courtship.
Jesus and... patriarchy.
Jesus and... female submission and subordination.
Jesus and... the KJV.
Jesus and... no television.
Jesus and... dominion.
Jesus and... SAHDs.
Jesus and... daily family devotionals with only the patriarch "leading worship".
For the church in general...
Jesus and... a trinitarian belief.
Jesus and... a oneness or some other Godhead belief.
Jesus and... church attendance every Sunday and Wednesday prayer meeting.
Jesus and... some particular translation of the bible.
Jesus and... the biblical canon.
Jesus and... Calvinism.
Jesus and... Arminianism.
Jesus and... any "ism".
Jesus and... 10% tithing.
And so on. (as I said earlier, with those so heavily criticizing Rob Bell, it's obviously Jesus and Hell)
When the bible speaks of false teachers, heretics, false prophets, wolves, and so forth, without fail it's speaking of those who ADD to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for our sins. It isn't speaking AT ALL of secondary and ancillary issues of Christian life. It's speaking only to the foundational gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for our sins, and speaking against those who attached extras, such as adherence to OT law or to specific cultural influences, to Christ crucified.
According to Jesus, the two greatest commandments? Whole-heartedly love God, and love others as you love yourself - because on just those two hang ALL of the Law and the prophets. No one could seem to grasp that it really is that simple.
Is Christ crucified enough for your Christianity? If you read Mr. Bell's book and found it all truth, would it unravel your faith?
It never hurts to put our faith under the microscope and make sure we aren't developing fangs of our own.
Editorial and commentary on Christian culture, religious and political fundamentalism, and more.
Well, I do believe in hell, but this post raises some good points that need to be considered. You know, that's one of the reasons I figured out I wasn't a Christian even though I thought I was. I had "prayed a prayer" because if I didn't, I would go to hell. It wasn't about loving Jesus, it was about fire insurance. When it started to be about Jesus for me, that was when I could really become a Christian. So, while I believe in the existence of hell, it is not what we should be concerned with when getting saved.
ReplyDelete"If you need a Hell to exist, what does that say about your Heaven?", and another, which I feel is extremely important, was "If it weren't for Satan, would you still cling to Christ?"
ReplyDeleteso good...
is Jesus merely a "get out of hell free" card? would we still believe in Him if hell didn't exist? we know many would say yes...but really? i know this is off topic a little....but i appreciate this post.
~ R
I am personally very excited about Rob Bell's book, because of my own journey. It started several years ago when I took a really hard look at the teachings of Calvinism. I hear the grace, grace, grace part, but the part about some people being *predestined* to Hell, disturbed me very deeply.
ReplyDeleteI started looking into Hell in the Bible, and the origins of the doctrine. I started reading some things not considered "orthodox" in my Christian tradition.
I love what you said here. It nails exactly what I have felt for a long, long, time. I am looking forward with great hope to the day when every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father. Instead of some of those knees bowing unwillingly, as I've always been taught, I think we'll see a lot more of the "early workers in the vinyard" attitudes. They will be furious because in their hearts they ARE working for their salvation, they've earned it, and
damn all those people who showed up late to the party. That's what the attitude of many Christians really says to me.
I'll be honest - I just skimmed the other article and don't really have time to PONDER all of this, but something that popped into my head: Is hell a true "lake of fire" or actually a separation from God? Jesus is referred to as "living water," and if I recall correctly, there is a scripture that talks of the man in hell who begs for a drop of water ... perhaps hell is the absent of God/the Living Water? I don't know.
ReplyDelete*absence
ReplyDeletehaha well written, Lewis. Thank you for adding the humor in as well.
ReplyDeleteYou always know how to get right to the crux of the matter. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteMy mind continues to be boggled by people like Piper and Taylor, that think they can judge a book simply by its title and without reading it. It boggles my mind further that people take guys like Piper and Taylor at their word and won't read the book based on their non-review.
As I've gotten older and perhaps wiser I believe that hell is and always will be separation from Christ. Be it man made or doctrinal exclusivity, if you don't believe that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ has saved you, it's a fail. But what hell is? I don't know. Is it the pit of fire, is it loss of hope? I don't wish to find.
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteAside from attaching the doctrine of hell to Jesus for salvation, hell seems to attach well to many of the people you write about. :)
And what about the other side: would we follow Jesus if there was no heaven? I once said this in a biblestudy group plagued by extreme dogmatism. It was, of course, only rhetorical as I do believe in Heaven. But I wonder sometimes, would my devotion to Christ be ardent if there was no heaven?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm being perfectly honest, it would not be. But that is okay. Jesus talks often about rewards, and sometimes Heaven is the reason I can endure a day. It may not be the best motivator, but just like we reward toddlers (unless you are from my dogmatic biblestudy), it gets 'em going.
So, my question is, is Heaven one of the "extras" we place onto your statement: Jesus and ______.
Fascinating topic. As always, I think you are the bravest, and most controversial, blog writer out there! :) Good for you, my friend.
Resting in Jesus Alone (because it really is that simple),
Karen
I did not finish that story - sorry! Needless to say, my "what if" rhetoric did not go over well at the Biblestudy for Pharisees. I think I might be due for a flogging by their standards. :)
ReplyDeleteVERY valid question, Karen...and probably the toughest one for any of us to come to an honest assessment of.
ReplyDeleteLewis,
ReplyDeleteAnother good post. I wait to read more. Its about believing God with your heart and not just with your head.
wow. Freedom with every word.
ReplyDeleteGreat lists. I want to scream over the KJV--it was written to reach the masses in the language of the day! So, to make it easier for people to 'get' this concept it was "The Message" Bible of it's day. Get over it already!! Don't even get me started on the "Umbrella of authority/transfer of authority" or the "meaning" of your name and how it affects your health etc from Gothard.
ReplyDeleteI saw this statement once: "I'd rather be in Hell with Jesus than in Heaven without Him."
ReplyDeleteHow many Christians could say that?
Lewis said:
ReplyDelete"Take a look at the groups I write about. Some prominent people within these movements have personally communicated to me their displeasure with my portrayal of their religious beliefs, claiming that they aren't legalists, that they believe in salvation through Christ alone. I simply don't believe them. They don't present a simple gospel of Christ crucified."
Here's the thing, though. I think both are true. People in these movements do believe in *justification* through Christ alone. I really think that telling them they actually don't, is counter-productive. They will simply feel falsely accused and dismiss the truth in what you *are* saying. And you are saying the truth, because they *don't* present a simple gospel of Christ crucified. But they aren't adding to the gospel at the point of salvation-- they're adding to it *after* salvation. They don't do all this added stuff in order to be saved-- they do all this added stuff in order to be extra special, elite soldiers in God's army; to be His FAVORITE children, the ones with a *higher* calling. They may have begun in the Spirit, but they're seeking to be perfected by the flesh, pursuant to Galatians 3:3. But many of them really did begin in the Spirit, putting their trust in Christ alone. But then they went on and added a bunch of extra stuff to be considered *truly* devoted, better than the rest of us Christians who will go to heaven, but only by the skin of our teeth and without the crowns and rewards THEY will receive.
And they define legalism very narrowly, so that if you believe you're saved by Christ alone, you're not being legalistic, no matter how much extra stuff and additional rules you add to your life after salvation.
We have to proclaim the truth about legalism, per Colossians 2 and Galatians 3-5 -- that it's about more than just thinking you're saved by works. It's also living in bondage to earthly "rudimental principles." It's about trying to show God how devoted you are through earthly lifestyle practices, even though you believe your salvation itself is through Christ alone.
I have just finished another essay for No Longer Quivering about "perfectionism and elitism." I think it applies.
http://nolongerquivering.com/2011/03/01/testing-the-spirit-of-quiverfull-perfectionism-elitism/
But as far as "Jesus-and" is concerned when it comes to doctrine-- I think you're quite right. A lot of people think that believing in Jesus necessarily means you have to embrace certain other teachings too-- and that you're sinning even by questioning them. There are others where they'll acknowledge you're a Christian (like Arminianism, for example), but look down on you as a lesser one. They'll think you're on a slippery slope to denial of Christ, but that you haven't got there yet and you're still saved. But there are some doctrines that are non-negotiable to them-- and they are in addition to salvation through Christ alone.
However, I think a lot of the lifestyle practices, like homeschooling or wearing dresses, are less about "Jesus and ____ for salvation" and more about "Jesus for salvation, works for perfection."
I hope I'm managing to make it clear what I mean. :)
Christ is all we need. If we could live this truth out in our lives every day, we would have much fewer issues with bickering and fighting among ourselves.
ReplyDelete"My sins are ever before me," we cry with the fathers. What is to be done about my sins? It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. It is evident that no man is justified by the law. The tears of Esau would not restore his birthright. The water of baptism left Simon Magus in the gall of bitterness. Judas' confession that he had betrayed innocent blood only led him to suicide. The wonderful works professed in Matt. 7 were called "works of iniquity" by Christ. "How can he be clean that is born of a woman?" Here is the answer: "HE (the Lord of glory) APPEARED (came to earth in flesh) TO PUT AWAY SIN (all sin--past, present, and future) BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF." "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (I Peter 3:18).
ReplyDelete"It really is that simple."
ReplyDeleteAye, so simple children can understand.
Jesus spoke of hell as a reality and something that it was important we know about, so if we believe in and follow Him, shouldn't we accept all of His teachings as well? Not as a requirement for salvation, but as a result. Also, if sound doctrine isn't important to salvation, why did Paul urge Timothy to be careful of his doctrine to "save" himself and his hearers?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous...I covered that in the post...
ReplyDelete"When Paul referred to doctrine, he was speaking of ONE thing - salvation through Christ crucified (1st Corinthians 1:17, 21-24, Galatians 1:6-9). Everything else was ancillary and, quite often, simply a matter of opinion, culture, circumstance, what have you. Paul became distressed when people would change his simple gospel of Jesus into "Jesus and..._____."
Hopewell, the KJV was NOT written to reach the masses with truth. King James was no true believer, far from it. He "authorized" a group of hand-picked scholars to "translate" the Bible into English for one reason only- to reiterate the divine right of kings to rule. He feared the rebellion (as he saw it) against the divine right of kings and popes that other English Bible translations seemed to support. Since burning Wycliffe at the stake didn't stop the new translations from coming, King James shrewdly decided to take over the movement to translate scriptures into English and make sure it was done in such a way that supported the ideas HE wanted supported- the divine right of kings, the endorsement of the top-down chains of authority that governments and religions love (and that Jesus said must not be so among us).
ReplyDeleteThe King James translators were trying to reach the masses, but only as emissaries of kingly rule and domination of heirarchichal power structures. King James himself was no man of God by anyone's definition.
i can tell you one thing that i didn't become reconciled to christ to get out of going to hell okay? there's more to that for me.
ReplyDelete""it's speaking of those who ADD to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ crucified for our sins.""
exactly!! there is no Jesus +
okay, i've gotta take a break from trying to catch up. whew!