| | I was recently flipping through Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis". It did not surprise me to find that Bell is a part of the movement called The Emerging Church, though he does not name it. His Nooma videos have a flavor of ermerging all over them. Some of the stuff is good, some stuff raises red flags. The premise of this book raises a red flag for me. In the preface, Bell describes a velvet elvis painting in his basement signed by an artist "R." He posed the illustration that if this artist decided his painting was the best ever and that no better painting would ever be done, he would be crazy. Martin Luther and others in the 16th Century upset the apple cart by calling out the massive errors within the papacy and structure of "church". Bell likens the movement of the emerging church to the reformation. A bit presumptuous, but he does it in a magnificently humble way. It is odd. Then he goes on to say: As a part of this tradition, I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained. Now, I have to admit, I got a little squeamish reading this. Is our faith and action so dead that we need to do an overhaul of everything that has been decided upon for hundreds of years? Yes, Luther did. But the difference between Luther and Bell (along with his compadres) is that Luther anchored his thoughts and reforming ways to that which does not change: God's Word. The emerging discussion seems to be rank with everyone's existential and highly uneducated opinions. Do they open God's Word and utilize the opinions of Greek and Hebrew scholars who have dedicated their lives to the interpretation of it? I don't know. I have never sat in a circle with emergent folk. Another thought that came to mind (and this could be a seperate blog): in our highly technological world, are we becoming smarter or dumber? Luther had the Bible memorized in more than one language (if I am correct). Our ipods and movies and hatred for reading has developed a generally non-thinking generation. Are we so arrogant that we believe we can outthink the genius, godly (men who spend countless hours in prayer-as Luther did) men and women from centuries past? If you ask me, we should be reading their thoughts, not Brian McClaren's. And finally, I wonder if Bell skates on the thin line of rejecting absolute truth: Jesus is more compelling than ever. More inviting, more true, more mysterious than ever. Is Jesus really more true now than He was 100 years ago? Or when he was here on earth 2,000 years ago? I always thought if something was true, it was always true and always will be true. Isn't truth, by a correct definition, absolute? 2 + 2 = 4 was true at creation, it is true now, and it will be true when the end comes. The slippery part is when we bring our interpretation of truth into the mix. This, I believe, is where we need to continue the process of reformation. I know I don't have much of a reader's base anymore, but if you have thoughts on this, please, comment. Have a Merry Christmas. |
