This morning I read a curious (and destructive?) statement from an emergent leader—one who was featured on the cover of Christianity Today. How about this for open-mindedness, by the well-known pastor of the so-called “fastest growing church in evangelical history”?
“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing that the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of… the religious cults? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place was it?”
Wow. Here’s my question: If the virgin birth is a sham and the gospel writers were really veracity-challenged mood-sensitive apologists, is that OK? Should we just keep on believing?
Or are some things so essential that the viablity of Christianity hangs in the balance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
If we begin to rewrite any part of the bible, whether it be the virgin birth or Jonah and the whale, then we are on a slippery slope. This is a conversation I've had many times with friends, who are believers, but choose to disbelieve parts of the Old Testament because they consider parts of our history to be physical impossibilities. My question back is always, "How can you chose to disbelieve in Noah and the Flood, which is conceivable, yet believe that a man, who had been dead for three days, rose again?"
John, the quote from Christianity Today is frightening. Why would a prominent Christian leader challenge God's Word? Does it play well for the audience? Is that what American Christians are longing for? Do we want a Christianity where we choose the parts of the bible that are "real" and judge the other parts as stories that writers changed for their own personal agendas.
History tells us that the writers of the gosple were persuecuted and all, but one died for the Truth. How inconceivable that these men died for some truth and some lies.
Other's thoughts???
My thoughts:
[Implying Jesus is not God]..."Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?"
Yes. In fact, this is a common, lukewarm belief. People like to reach this conclusion when they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Jesus was a great person and is a good example to follow in your life; just don't embarrass me with talk of miracles. Where's your "WWJD" bracelet?
An interesting note, I read recently that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible eliminating all miracles, including the virgin birth and ressurection. It goes to show that this type of thinking is nothing new.
"If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place was it?”
Wrong. Replace "faith" with "structure" or "case" and any civil engineer or lawyer would agree with you respectively. But after reading 1 Corinthians 15:12-34 (looking foward to reaching this part in the sermon series), I'm compelled to believe that our faith DOES fall apart very quickly if certain events are proven to be false, namely Christ's ressurection.
But I ask myself: Is the virgin birth as equally important as the ressurection? I read the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 (also in Matthew)- Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).
Unfortunately, Immanuel doesn't mean "Larry's son with us." I have to believe that the virgin birth is a vital necessity to the importance of the ressurection, in that no man could conquer sin. Only one who was fully man and fully God could be capable of such a feat.
Thanks for allowing me to share.
First of all, the quote was not originally taken from Christianity Today. The quote's origin is Rob Bell's 2005 book Velvet Elvis. It's interesting that a quote in a book that is two years old is just now receiving undue criticism. If you read the "quote" in context of the book, you will see that Bell is speaking in metaphor throughout the book.
The question he poses is not the validity of the virgin birth, but "do you have faith?" He is being quite sarcastic, in suggesting that Jesus's father could be a man named Larry and that DNA tests could be done to disprove the Scriptures. He suggests that we over-analyze Scripture to win an argument (you can see that in the context of the chapter "Bricks"). That is the basis of the question he poses to the reader.
I would be very careful in taking a "quote" out of a book without reading it, citing it (and its author), and posting on a blog. You are just creating controversy--energy and time wasted fighting/arguing amongst the Body of Christ on which Christian leader is correct and who is not (which is exactly Bell's point in that chapter of the book). Shouldn't we be out sharing our faith in relevant ways, as Bell is currently doing?
Christianity Today should be ashamed for taking the quote out of context of the book (which is not a new book) and stirring up an unwarranted controversy. They need to get with the program, which is the Kingdom of God.
Good point. Thanks for posting the original source.
I read some excerpts and reviews online, and I think I'll check this one out soon. The themes mentioned are topics I ponder often. I have faith, but I don't want to be ignorant. On the other side, I have doubt, but I don't want to be a cold-hearted skeptic. For example, In my previous post, I mentioned I get irritated when people remove the spiritual side of Jesus as God; but I also get irritated when people tell me I should feel some warm tingly feeling if the Holy Spirit resides in me.
I did get excited when I read this post, since it just happened to coincide with a recent bible study discussion in John 20-21 I was still thinking about. We discussed the apostles doubt of the ressurection, and why Jesus chose to prove he was alive to them and not the Jewish leaders or Roman officials.
It comes down to the point that if you really *want* to see something a certain way, you will be able to find evidence to support your point of view. I try to approach each issue not only with an open mind, but also with an open, receptive heart. I still put a big emphasis on education and the scientific method to avoid pitfalls...I am an engineering nerd after all.
Caroline and John,
Thanks for your reply. I'm so glad that you (and others like Holly and Jeff) are reading and responding to our blog. In some small way, you have restored my faith in blogging.
That said, though, I must contend that you've done to me the very thing that you reacted so strongly against. You've taken my statement out of context.
Notice in my original entry I didn't say anything about this quote coming from Christianity Today. I only said that I read something from a leader who was (past tense) featured on the cover of CT. It's been a couple of years since Bell's mug graced the front page of the beloved periodical; however, I only recently picked up his book again at the request of someone else.
The quote that I posted in my original entry came from his book (p. 26), not CT.
And I beg to differ with your interpretation of it. Clearly Bell is warning against creating a 'brickian' theology that is so inflexible that it cannot handle difficult questions and challenges--or a faith that a little wobbling would destroy. This I appreciate. And he rightly argues that we need to abandon "defensive postures" in faith-sharing. I couldn't agree more.
But to imply (as Bell sarcastically does--and yes, I've read the chapter) that we should be more flexible on even such things as the virgin birth is, indeed, as dangerous as I suggested.
What good is faith if it's not rooted in something real? There's nothing inherently noble in having faith. Faith in what?
If Jesus had an earthly biological father then the virgin birth is a sham, his godhead negotiable, and the Scriptures filled with error and apostolic subversiveness.
Sorry, I guess I'm too inflexible to accept that.
Even Bell (whom I've met personally during my time in GR and who I tend to like) adds a nervous footnote to the aforementioned statement in which he cites biblical "proof" of the virgin birth, among other things.
But Bell insists on fashioning a Christianity without walls that "inevitably keep people out." He says, "Doctrines aren't the point." Jesus is the point. To which I say, Yes but isn't it doctrine that guards against the point becoming something else? Or someone else?
And weren't the NT papers written for the express purpose of preserving sound doctrine?
To be sure, I understand Rob's argument. And appreciate much of what he's trying to say. But consistent with his "emerging" perspective is a reluctance to affirm virutally anything as essential to the faith.
And here's the irony: in his sales-pitch for flexibility, he becomes too inflexible to appreciate those whose flexibility doesn't allow for alternate views on doctrines like the Trinity and virgin birth.
Hence, he ends up with a non-systematic system of beliefs as part of a non-movement movement that must be described as questionable at best.
Thanks for the dialogue. This is fun isn't it?
JPS4
John,
enjoying the dialogue...
although, i'm not sure how we took your quote out of context. the correction that the quote's original source is from the book and not CT was directed to the other posters (sp. holly), because if not read carefully it's easy to see CT (because no other source is named) and assume that's where the quote originally appeared.
John T. heard on the radio (the same day you posted about it) that CT had also taken note of Bell's quote and disected it out of context of its original chapter.
From my experience in a multi-denominational, multi-ethnic, national campus ministry, CT continues to be about two years behind and fairly irrelevant to anyone who is not a "main-line white upper-middle class evangelical." My criticism of CT is an overflow of this experience as well. I'm a bit biased, but who isn't?
Fair enough, Caroline. I like CT but I don't consider the editors as cutting edge as they themselves might. I was especially disappointed in their treatment of the whole 'openness' discussion a couple of years ago.
As for Rob Bell, I like him too. But I'm not sure that even he knows where he comes down on a lot of critical issues. He's in a very different place (theologically) now than he was when he started Mars Hill. (But we should be changing, right?)
And finally, as for you and John: as we used to say in my multi-ethnic, multi-denominational, less-than-middle-class neighborhood back in the day, (despite what I think about some of your ecclesiastical leanings) "I've got nuttin' but love for you."
Good stuff. JPS
John, thanks for bringing us back to the Truth in a culture where the NT papers are either ignored, or quoted out of context. Sadly, in our postmodern, "emerging" culture (I'm still not sure what we are emerging "from" or "to"), the surest way to upset someone is to actually have convictions.
Jeff M.
John your blog raises a couple of interesting points that can be addressed.
As a point of reflection, we shouldn’t condemn Rob Bell for asking the question as a point of discussion. I mean, it worked didn’t it? Here we are thinking and talking. I just pray that this is just an intellectual exercise, not a statement of belief or doubt. I haven’t read the book so I will hold my comments on that aspect until I do.
Let me begin with the hypothetical scenario proposed by this leader who asks a couple questions based on a fictitious scenario. If Jesus had an earthly father, would following his teachings be the best way to live? I would argue that if this were the case, following Jesus' teaching would still be a good pattern to follow because the principles are based on love, and justice which define how we interact with society and our surroundings. (Parenthetically, we know they would also be the correct way because they are indeed based on total truth.) Taking away the deity of Jesus for the sake of this discussion does not change his lessons regarding human interaction. But if we are only looking at the social teachings, we could also follow those of Confucius, Siddhartha or some other wise teacher which many have chosen to do. However, this scenario completely destroys Jesus’ teaching regarding the redemptive nature of his life, and God's plan to reconnect with us for eternity to His Glory. And that is the real foundation of Jesus’s teaching and our faith, even the reason for our existence.
Secondly, I vehemently disagree with the leaders final thought that, “…If the whole faith falls apart when we re-examine one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place was it?” That argument doesn’t even make sense. If you take any scientific fact, and change one element (not just “re-examine” it) making it false, it falls apart. That is the beauty of truth, it all has to work or it is a lie. The fact that every single point has to be true is its very strength. The virgin birth not only has to be true, but so does every other prophesy concerning Jesus. Yes, it takes faith to believe, but there is so much compelling evidence to believe, both personal and physical. For example, it is noteworthy that there were eyewitnesses at the time of many of the NT writings that could have contradicted them if they were not true. Add to that the fact that science continues to find ancient writings and archeological evidence that supports both OT & NT original documents, and consequently the truth of the Bible itself. Every day we are given more reason, instead of less reason, to believe.
So to your question, should we keep on believing if we knew that the Bible was not truth? Of course not! That would be self-deceiving and stupid. It would be making a choice to believe in a lie. Therefore I have to fall on the side that says changing or disbelieving one point impacts the whole. Yes, there are essentials. The whole thing does fall apart if even one little thing is not true. Either the Bible is truth or it isn’t. There is no middle ground! To deny the virgin birth, any of the miracles, or biblical accounts (any point for that matter) calls into question the basis of our faith, including the integrity of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and thereby denying God’s authority and veracity.
Excellent insights, Jeff M. You have very clearly articulated a thought-provoking answer.
I certainly agree that 'the way of Jesus' would be worth following even if he were just a man (and nothing else), but if Jesus were only a human, with a biological father named Larry or Leroy or anything else, one would have to question his emotional stability (as C.S. Lewis points out), given his repeated claims to deity, and his incredible promises (e.g. "I go to prepare a place for you..." and "Today, you will be with me in paradise".)
JPS4
Good times. This has really put a fire in some stomachs. I get excited to see everyone's passion. I am pretty fired up myself. I just finished reading Rob Bell's book "Velvet Elvis." For the most part, save your money or try to get it on half.com.
I have only one thing to say in Bell's defense and, as I promised Caroline, I just have to let it go. He is not undermining Scripture of the validity of the Virgin birth. He cleary states, "I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birth and the Trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more."(page 27)
I don't agree with Rob Bell on many things, but he is not trying to re-write Scripture. For the most part, I enjoyed his teachings on the Bible within the book. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still feel he was wrongly taken out of text. I've read the original post and the other blogs and the questions posed are valid. Those I do agree with. The Virgin birth is an essential in the validity of Christianity. Very Essential!!
I guess my only point is that Rob Bell thinks it is essential as well. Enjoying the discussion. Mad love back at ya JPS4. Peace.
john t
Hey John T,
I picked up a brand new book last night entitled Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives (Zondervan, 2007) and I have decided to delve into this topic even more deeply. I also discovered, by way of conversation this week, that Mark Driscoll, well-known pastor of Mars Hill mega-church in Seattle, had already sounded off (via his blog) on the very statement by Rob Bell that I posted.
The controversial Driscoll (who was introduced by John Piper at last year's Desiring God conference as the most maligned speaker that he had ever invited to the event) responded to Bell's (implicit) question: What are we really losing if we give up the virgin birth?
Driscoll's anwer: Jesus.
That's what (or who) we lose when we remove such critical theological "bricks" as the virgin birth, Trinity and the resurrection.
Now, I feel like I should say this again: Rob Bell's book is certainly thought-provoking and he makes some excellent points. I love his emphases on community, humility in sharing our stories, faith and the value of doubt, the sacredness of all we do, the existence of truth outside of the Bible, and the damaging effects of defensiveness.
Bell is indeed able, as he himself subtly touts in his book (though someone else, of course), able to "make discussions profound and deep and spiritual".
But his postmodern approach to scripture ("no one is objective", hence there is no definitively "right" interpretation) and his fondness for "new interpretations" scares me.
Nevertheless, I'm ready to move on to a different topic. How about a posting on sex? Stay tuned...
JPS4
Not to rehash anything here, but I'm halfway through reading Velvet Elvis; it's a nice break from all the pre-marital literature...
I finally understand the whole "trampoline spring" analogy in context that the springs are doctrines which allow us to "jump for Jesus" :) Importantly noted, the springs are NOT God - not Jesus (p. 25).
So, I may be overanalyzing this, but I think the analogy is incomplete. In order for the trampoline spring to do it's job, it needs to be anchored to the trampoline frame - which, though typically made from tubular aluminum, it could be possible for a trampoline to have a brick foundation ;). The spring is essentially fixed at one end. Without delving into the physics of spring-mass systems, it is suffice to say that grounding is necessary; or else when you tried to jump, you would just fall through and hit bottom.
My point is that though it is good to be flexible as to not become defensive, we need to be anchored in a strong foundation. So now the question is what are "springs" and what is the "frame"? Right now I'm not convinced the virgin birth should be considered a spring at all; in which case Mr. Bell chose a poor example to describe his analogy.
That's all. -Jeff Peters
I would leave it at that, but some might find it interesting that the frequency at which a person jumps on a particular trampoline depends on their weight.
Uh, whatchutalkin'bout Willis?
Jeff, I promise you this: only an engineer would read Velvet Elvis and then delve into the physics of a spring-mass system.
But I loved it! Your analysis of the broken analogy is fitting. And I couldn't agree more with your assessment of pre-marital literature: it's tolerable only in small doses. Thanks for weighing in again.
JPS4
Post a Comment