Velvet Elvis
I am reading “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell. He’s the guy in the Nooma videos. I just read the portion titled “Yoke”.
I am being rocked by what Rob Bell has written. I find that assumptions I have held for over 20 years about the bible are being challenged. That doesn’t mean my assumptions are wrong (although some have to be – no one has it all right). But it does mean that once again, I have to re-evaluate what I believe about the Word of God. I think that is part of the author’s point… that the Word is “alive” and therefore I must have a living, changing relationship with it. Unfortunately I, like most people, want to find hard and fast “rules” to give myself a sense of security… a sense of; “I have this figured out so no I can move on”. A sense of “this is what the bible is, this I what the bible says – therefore I know how to live my life”. I guess it’s a desire for an unhealthy sense of closure regarding the “Living and active” word of God. This must change for me… what about you?
Rob bell explains “binding and loosing” as the wrestling with, and deciding on, what the scriptures mean and what to do about them. Action is a key. I initially feel very uncomfortable about the idea of giving everyone license to interpret the scriptures for themselves and live accordingly. But really, that is what we are doing anyways? I guess I feel uncomfortable with this because most of us have not developed the skill or discipline to interpret the Word for ourselves. That, in my opinion, is a crying shame. Unfortunately we as a culture have surrendered the power of interpreting scripture to pastors and leaders who make these crucial decisions for us. Don’t get me wrong – it is a good thing to learn from those who are devoting themselves to study, interpretation, and communication of scripture… BUT, that can’t be our only means of processing the word of God and making decisions. I’ve always assumed that there IS a right interpretation for every passage – I just have to find it. Rob doesn’t seem to discourage this theory – he just shows how it is meant to be done in community and humility. And that it is my responsibility as a disciple to “bind and loose” and then live it out. I still have an overwhelming desire to “get it right”, and that is a good thing. But I have to admit that I am often less than accepting of other peoples journey of interpretation. I am very frustrated about how some people use the scriptures to promote their “revelation” or agenda. I guess that is part of the call of leadership – to do what we can, to get what God is intending us to get from His Word, by all means necessary… and to teach it, and hold people to it. This has driven to study more and understand more about His Word. And to know His Holy Spirit who will guide me into all truth.
I am being rocked by what Rob Bell has written. I find that assumptions I have held for over 20 years about the bible are being challenged. That doesn’t mean my assumptions are wrong (although some have to be – no one has it all right). But it does mean that once again, I have to re-evaluate what I believe about the Word of God. I think that is part of the author’s point… that the Word is “alive” and therefore I must have a living, changing relationship with it. Unfortunately I, like most people, want to find hard and fast “rules” to give myself a sense of security… a sense of; “I have this figured out so no I can move on”. A sense of “this is what the bible is, this I what the bible says – therefore I know how to live my life”. I guess it’s a desire for an unhealthy sense of closure regarding the “Living and active” word of God. This must change for me… what about you?
Rob bell explains “binding and loosing” as the wrestling with, and deciding on, what the scriptures mean and what to do about them. Action is a key. I initially feel very uncomfortable about the idea of giving everyone license to interpret the scriptures for themselves and live accordingly. But really, that is what we are doing anyways? I guess I feel uncomfortable with this because most of us have not developed the skill or discipline to interpret the Word for ourselves. That, in my opinion, is a crying shame. Unfortunately we as a culture have surrendered the power of interpreting scripture to pastors and leaders who make these crucial decisions for us. Don’t get me wrong – it is a good thing to learn from those who are devoting themselves to study, interpretation, and communication of scripture… BUT, that can’t be our only means of processing the word of God and making decisions. I’ve always assumed that there IS a right interpretation for every passage – I just have to find it. Rob doesn’t seem to discourage this theory – he just shows how it is meant to be done in community and humility. And that it is my responsibility as a disciple to “bind and loose” and then live it out. I still have an overwhelming desire to “get it right”, and that is a good thing. But I have to admit that I am often less than accepting of other peoples journey of interpretation. I am very frustrated about how some people use the scriptures to promote their “revelation” or agenda. I guess that is part of the call of leadership – to do what we can, to get what God is intending us to get from His Word, by all means necessary… and to teach it, and hold people to it. This has driven to study more and understand more about His Word. And to know His Holy Spirit who will guide me into all truth.
posted by Rob Petkau at 12:44 PM
23 Comments:
It's pretty amazing hey? Living describes it well. I liked that book. It had some solid thoughts. We should talk sometime...
Someone recently reminded me of a passage that says "All scripture is God breathed"
I like that because breath doesn't make things right or wrong, breath gives life. All scripture is life. I like.
Rob
Two things
The Just shall live by fail... its ours and we must learn to breath out what the scriptures mean to us.
Breathing Scripture can only be effectively done in community.
I intentionally left out the word interpret because interpretation requires a special skill of knowing a language that others do not... however kingdom language...the language of the scriptures is something that every human being can understand and be touched by.
Check out my blog to see who else is reading Velvet Elvis. Freaky hey?? I had a hard time wrapping my head around the binding and loosing interpretation but I can't deny his point.
Hey Rob,
I enjoyed our coffee yesterday! I enjoyed your blog and just wanted to make a few comments (of course this is only my opinion, not the ABSOLUTE truth;) I think the Bell makes some very good points in this chapter:
- "The Bible is a difficult book";
- When people tell you what the "Bible really says" it is only their opinion or interpretation of the Bible (You can't get away from the word 'interpret' because to 'breath out what the scriptures mean to us' involves interpreting what it is saying to me).
However, I cannot accept his interpretation of "binding and loosing." The verses that Bell gives (Matt 16:19; 18:18) are found in the context of faith and prayer. It doesn't say anything about binding and loosing Scripture or interpretation of it. What Bell seems to be asserting is that we have the authority to write Scripture. Is that not what the apostles did when they were binding and loosing (58, Velvet Elvis)? IF the Apostles could change the interpretation because Jesus gave them the authority to bind and loose scripture(Bell), then do we have the same authority? It seems that Bell feels we should be open to this. Should we open the canon for further interpretation? To follow Bells theology in this book then the answer must be yes because the canon is the invention of man and it could have been done in error or they might have misinterpreted what God wanted. I know Bell does not agree with this in his book (68), but the spirit of his book seems to. He does make a good point that at some point we need to have faith that God knows what he is doing. The question is when do we get to that point? Is it when we are more comfortable with our interpretation of scripture?
I guess I am at a crossroads: I believe that God is big enough to give us scripture in a way that we will interpret and understand what he wants us to know; however, I know that I am human and do not want to be closed to what God wants to do. This is where I agree with Bell that community is the key. However I do not think that we can simply say "it is good between us and the Holy Spirit" to the exclusion of the Bible and past interpretations of it.
I completely agree Drew! I just choose to give the author the benefit of the doubt for my purpose of thinking new thoughts. I look at the way Bell uses the word "interpret", and I assume he means - to translate through culture and language - so as to apply the concrete unchangeable Word - today. Not to actually change the Word (or write it). But I am equally concerned that people will take what he has written that way. I guess that's where teachers like you come in!
I like the way you put it - "to translate through culture and language - so as to apply the concrete unchangeable Word - today" I guess I am a little jaded :o) I get a little worried with some of the stuff I read that church leaders are writing that is moving away from a solid foundation to swim in the philosophical soup of postmodern spirituality. If our foundation is wrong then it has been wrong for 2000 years. Even a trampoline must be on solid ground. I am glad you ask the questions, it makes the journey so much more interesting :o)
The drew has a pov that I agree with as well. In our determination to figure how to communicate to people with a postmodern and post-postmodern worldview, I fear that the temptation has been great to alter our approach to Scripture to match that worldview, rather than apply the Scripture to critique that worldview.
I remember reading or hearing someone say that the ideology embraced by the young adults in the 60's has not changed and is now promoted as mainstream since those young adults are now the university profs with tenure and our current business leaders. Their essentially unchanged pov has influenced all that they do and say and think as there has largely been no compelling reason to change.
Now many of us "younger" Christian leaders have grown up in the pervasive mindset of postmodernism and we naturally think this way. If this thinking doesn't change, it will simply become the filter through which we view everything in the world, including our theology. If the pomo pov is flawed, then our theology will be tainted.
My point is this: many of the comments about Scripture, interpretation and practice seem to be heavily influenced by this pomo pov. Is this a good thing? I can appreciate that people think this way and we must grasp how they think to communicate well, but if we think this way, would we even recognise its effect on our theology?
I know that no one is suggesting that we just swallow Bell's view here, but I must say that when I read this summary of his "binding and loosing" idea, all I could think of was "here we go again": someone is trying really hard to make the Bible say what pomos would be comfortable with.
If the pomo pov is critical of the rigidity of the modernistic pov and would suggest it needs correction, why is the pomo pov not equally open to criticism and correction?
Good input!
But I thought that was the point of a pomo approach to christian spirituality... it's ALL open to criticism, correction and reform (including pomo ideas). At least anything with the touch of fallible humanity/religion on it. I have yet to hear anyone claim that - in the name of a newer worldview - we need to second guess the infallibility of original scripture.
I definitely see the value in the pomo approach of working through ideas and practices in order to see them for what they are...and I have no problem with that. I'm guessing that Martin Luther was a prototypical pomo in that sense...
My concern/cynicism arises when the practice of deconstruction becomes either the end in itself or the mechanism by which we make the Scripture say what we want or something completely different than it has ever been taken to mean before. In a roundabout way, this damages the view of Scripture as infallible.
Now--don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that anyone is intentionally going out there to claim that we must second guess Scripture's infallibility (though there are some who do). I just think that this "new way" of looking at the infallible Scriptures might be replacing our hermeneutics with the result that the authority of the Scriptures is inadvertently lost (boy-that just sounded like a term paper...)
So I'm not taking sides here, just making an observation that the pomo pov carries a danger that few people seem to acknowledge. It's been said that pigs don't know that pigs stink, and if pomos don't honestly evaluate the pomo pov, there's a danger that biblical interpretation will go the wrong way...
Rob said..." But I thought that was the point of a pomo approach to christian spirituality... it's ALL open to criticism, correction and reform (including pomo ideas). At least anything with the touch of fallible humanity/religion on it. I have yet to hear anyone claim that - in the name of a newer worldview - we need to second guess the infallibility of original scripture."
Rob I agree, in the emerging/pomo conversations I've been in, no one is doubt the infallibility of scripture, or trying to re-write to make it consumer firendly.But I think we all struggle with the thought we've made some of our theology infallible...even more so than scripture. I love Rob Bell, trampoline anaology...for me, that is the way theology should be. We should be able to engage and stretch...but at the same time, realize there is a point in which it breaks.It always intrugues me in the Old testament, how they never adressed God by name...I know in one sense it was his absolute transcendance...and in another He was undiscribable,beyond naming. I think that is a great frustration with the modern church as the engage postmodernity or even the emerging church conversation...that there always doesn't have to be an absolute truth/ answer, that mystery can reveal truth. Just some rambling thoughts...Peace Ron+
I find it interesting that we are using the label "pomo" to pigeon hole a group of people or a certain ideology.
I'm sure if you ask Rob Bell or Brian McLaren their views on postmodernity, they would say that it has come and gone.
As Rob P. already said in his post, we are already teaching people how to interpret the Bible for themselves anyway. WPBC taught us how to do that. What's so postmodern about that?
So if "THEY" are all Pomo's does that make "US" Premo's. I think we think of ourselves as a little too "Primo" most of the time. I've got a lot to learn from Rob Bell and Brian McLaren... and you all!!!
Keep the dialogue going!!!!
"I have yet to hear anyone claim that - in the name of a newer worldview - we need to second guess the infallibility of original scripture." - Rob P.
I would argue that this is the underlying thought behind some of the emerging dialogue. Whether he or anyone else wants to admit it, in Brian McLaren's book "A new kind of Christian," a postmodern worldview is considered better or more enlightened than the modern worldview and the interpretation of Scripture through a postmodern lens is better.
My question is...
When do we draw the line of questioning? How far do we question? What answer do we accept? By what standard do we use to judge truth? Which interpretation of the Bible do we use: the pre-modern, the modern, or the post-modern?
Whatever one wants to call oneself (posmodern, ultra-modern, late-modern, post-postmodern), the reality is that the ideology is much the same and needs to be viewed through the lens of scripture rather than vice-versa.
Personally I follow a post-post-post-post-pre-medieval worldview!
the Drew,
You should read Velvet Elvis if you haven't. It's pretty good.
As far as which interpretation we should use, isn't the Bible truth in all circumstances?? So in a modern time it WAS truth for the modern cuture and in the postmodern time it was truth in the postmodern culture and in whatever we're in now it will continue to be truth in this culture.
I think as Christians we believe that Christ lives inside of us. I believe that from this blog and others, I've learned a lot more about Christ as I have seen Him IN you all through your writings. Don't the authors of our present day deserve the same grace no matter what their context????
Paul & Wanda Moores,
I have read Velvet Elvis and though there is some things that Bell says which I agree with and he challenged me in many ways, there is also much I do not agree with.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that the TRUTH in the bible stays the same but how it is perceived or understood can be different? So does situation or culture determine truth?
I agree that we should give the authors of today grace, but not because they deserve it. Who deserves grace? I also think that along with grace we need to be willing to challenge their thoughts and conclusions as readily as they challenge the thoughts and conclusions of our forefathers. At what point do we stand up and say, "I think you have gone far enough!"?
I like Rob Bell's question - "...who gets to decide?"
Who gets to decide when they/we have gone far enough? Who gets to say what systematic theologies and "absolute truths" are where we draw the line. The most pious and educated scholars can't agree... even the apostles had trouble with that.
I agree with you Drew that truth needs to be defined as much as possible, and while I also agree that the mystery reveals truth in a way that absolute conclusions can't - I think we are responsibe to make conclusions that are so based in truth that they allow us to grow, build, correct, etc. I must accept that while Truth is absolute - my conclusions (and others) will never be totally absolute. They need to flex a little (trampoline).
Does this mean that I tell students to figure out their own biblical theology of pre-marital sex? NO WAY - I teach that the Bible is clear, and I can make some NEAR certain conclusions about God's view of sex to teach. If 99% certainty is not enough for you... then I suggest that the word of God may not have the authority in your life that you claim it has (*imaginary conversation with a teenager).
The point is - we make the best conclusions (systematic theologies) we can. We know that we make the best conclusions we can based on absulote truth... but we cannot fully contain truth in our sys. theo's.
Somehow Truth must be God, not my theology. For God is truth.
"I must accept that while Truth is absolute - my conclusions (and others) will never be totally absolute." - Rob P.
Genious, I will shamelessly steal that quote! I think that is the struggle; people equate their conclusions of God's absolute truth with absolute truth. Theology is an evolving discipline because we are also learning more about God each day. If we don't have room to grow then maybe we should pop our ego to make room.
BTW Sweet dialogue everyone! It has encouraged me and helped me to process some of my theology.
Blessings to all,
Andrew
Although none of us deserves God's grace, I think we all deserve grace from each other.
I've always loved this from Paul to the church in Corinth...
If anyone imagines that he has come to know and understand much [of divine things, without love], he does not yet perceive and recognize and understand as strongly and clearly, nor has he become as intimately acquainted with anything as he ought or as is necessary.
But if one loves God truly [with affectionate reverence, prompt obedience, and grateful recognition of His blessing], he is known by God [recognized as worthy of His intimacy and love, and he is owned by Him].( 1 Corinthians 8:2-3 )
I think in the end, of all our conversations...that about the best we can hope for. Peace all...Ron+
no doubt love and grace need to be part of our ongoing conversations, whether we agree or not. What I am saying Paul is that I give grace because God gave me grace, not because people deserve it. I give love because I was loved first. I try and give grace as much as possible, but unlike God my grace is not unlimited and I find that at times I stop giving it. I thank God that His grace never ends and is new every day and I pray to be more like Him.
In our conversations, what is grace? Or is grace just another word for tolerance?(in our conversations) Grace implies that someone has done something wrong, whereas tolerance implies that we disagree on our viewpoints but we can still live together in peace.
Ron,
Verse one really spoke to me, thanks for the word.
-Andrew
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Wow, I get charged when I read all these posts. I am reading the book, all but too slowly. I appreciate all your insight and thoughts. I will get reading so I can join the conversation.
Post a Comment
<< Home