"The abnegation of reason is not the evidence of faith, but the confession of despair."
- J.B. Lightfoot
Friday, November 18, 2011
Below are some excerpts from Parchment and Pen's C Michael Patton: Why Do We Love C.S. Lewis and Hate Rob Bell?.
First of all, no one hates Rob Bell (or at least they should not). But, speaking for myself, I am very comfortable handing out C.S. Lewis books by the dozens while I don’t keep a stock of Bell books on hand. There is not a book that Lewis wrote that I don’t encourage people to read and grow from. Even A Grief Observed, where Lewis attempts to retain his faith in God, questioning everything, in the middle of the crucible of doubt and pain, is one of my favorite books to give to people who are hurting. But I doubt I would ever recommend one of Bell’s works to establish someone in the faith. In fact, I might only recommend them for people to see “the other side.” Let me put it this way (and I must be very careful here): While I fully embrace and endorse the ministry of C.S. Lewis, I do not endorse or embrace the ministry of Rob Bell.The comments thread is also quite interesting.This post reminded me of some earlier conversations in this space regarding why so many of us are willing to enthusiastically accept C.S. Lewis while disdaining works by guys like Bell. I think Patton has done a good job defining the differences. I love the analogy of the chorus versus the stanzas.
You see, while C.S. Lewis has a great deal of theological foibles, his ministry is defined by a defense of the essence of the Gospel. The essence of who Christ is and what he did are ardently defended by Lewis, saturating every page of his book. His purpose was clear: to defend the reality of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. All other things set aside, this is what you leave with every time you read Lewis. The problematic areas are peripheral, not central. One has to look hard to find the departures from traditional Protestant Christianity. They are not the subject of his works and do not form the title of his books.
However, with Rob Bell, the essence of who Christ is and what he did seem to be secondary. One has to look for them as they weed through his defense of non-traditional Christianity. Whereas Lewis’ ultimate purpose is to define and defend “mere” Christianity, Bell’s “mere” Christianity is but a footnote to a redefined Christianity. Bell’s focus is to challenge, question, change, reform, and emerge from traditions that bind us. Traditional apologetics, orthodoxy, and foundations are brought into question from beginning to end. Christ’s reality, deity, exclusivity, and the hope of the Gospel proclaimed receive an occasional footnote (if at all) with Bell.
Another way to put this is to say that in the ministry of C.S. Lewis the central truths of the Christian faith are the chorus of his song with an occasional problem in the stanza. However, with Bell, the chorus of his song is filled with challenges to tradition Christianity and if you listen really close to the stanza, you might get an occasional line of orthodoxy.
. . .
And it is not just Rob Bell that is at issue. There are dozens of popular writers, pastors, bloggers, and authors who are singing the same chorus. They give lip service to the essence of Christianity, but from their platform it is only peppered in here and there. I think that this is the core problem with what is/was known as the “emerging church.” It was not that we are against rethinking, reimagining, reforming, or any other “re”, it is that this became the central focus of the movement. Christ, the cross, sin, righteousness, and all other elements that create the essence of who we are became the subject of challenge or mere lines in the song. This is why I distinguish between, say, Brian Mclaren and Dan Kimball, who both, early on, were considered part of the “emerging church”. Dan Kimble, like C.S. Lewis, though he challenges some things here and there, is committed to the essence of the historic Christian faith. Truth, doctrine, love, and righteousness are found in everything he does. They are the chorus. Whereas with Mclaren, traditional Christian belief and practice form more of (what seems to be) an embarrassing afterthought that are proclaimed only under duress.
This is why I don’t like the comparison of C.S. Lewis with Rob Bell. There is no comparison.
For my part, I've always thought the comparison between Lewis and modern emergent writers to be silly. As soon as one of them can produce a work rivaling Mere Christianity or Perelandra, we'll talk.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/6547.
Comments on "C.S. Lewis and Rob Bell":
2. Ken Leonard
- 11/18/2011 11:04 am CST
I think that Lewis benefits here from history. There are a lot of things that don't really mesh well with Evangelical thinking, and they do tend to get a pass.
Really, though, to compare Bell and Lewis does sort of require that you don't look at their actual readings and just compare book summaries.
I don't think that there's much out there that can compare to "Mere Christianity."
I think you're right that Lewis keeps the Gospels central and Bell appears not to, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the question is invalid. It might, though, answer the question. I think that both articles I've seen on this today are fascinating reads, and I'm hoping to have time to work through the comments this evening. (I promised my wife I'd get a lot done around the house today ... I don't think that this counts as a good excuse not to do it.)
3. Dave
- 11/19/2011 6:41 pm CST
To me it's a more general kind of thing. In general, Lewis seemed to hold to core historical beliefs, with some odd things at the edge. I absolutely could be wrong, but the impression, based upon listening to his teaching over time, and reading his books, is that Bell seems to be hiding things. It's like he's been slowly revealing his radical views because he knows we couldn't stomach that pill all at once. It seems deceitful, though I'm not saying I know his heart. He just seems less intellectually honest than Lewis who is very frank in his writing. And then there's the issue of doubt. Lewis seems to see doubt as a painful struggle, endured through the power of God, while Bell seems to see doubt as some noble calling that is the realm of the really smart people. (While Jesus, it seems to me, did not exactly have an exceedingly high view of doubt.) To me, Bells "all questions and no answers" approach comes off kind of snobby and faux intellectual to me. Some people know how to sound smart. Others actually are smart. (I, unfortunately, qualify for pretty much neither of those.) I would love to have Rob do some tracks with my band and hang out, he seems like a fun, interesting person, but I wouldn't take the guy seriously theologically. He's interesting, but obviously out of kilter with the basics, it seems to me. It's fun to listen to him talk. And his questions can be helpful in making people think. That's what questions are good for. And yet, I have never found it easy to take the guys seriously. He seems a little too impressed with his own questions. -- I recently saw an interview with Terry Gilliam, complaining about how Spielberg's movies "provide answers" while "good" movies don't. Which is a very artsy thing to say. And I think there is room for that, obviously, in art and life. It promotes thought. But what if you have the answer? What if Jesus is that answer? If it becomes "cool" or "intellectual" to avoid answers, then Jesus will be avoided. That, it seems to me, is what's happening with Rob Bell. He likes to talk about God and Jesus with thought provoking questions that bring out "cool" notions about the "mystery" of God. But the things that have been revealed, which is really the point of the Bible as a whole, and are the things we can really base our faith on, are considered small minded and boring. -- enough blabbering. Have a great Sunday.
5. Karl
- 11/20/2011 8:54 am CST
That's a good way of articulating the "felt difference" between the thrust of CSL and Rob Bell's writing.
I think it's a red herring to say "well CSL is a better writer than Bell." Bell's conservative critics weren't for the most part damning him for the literary quality of his writing, but rather for his theology. And I haven't see any of Bell's defenders compare his ability as a writer to Lewis, but rather they point out that many of the theological beliefs for which Bell is criticized were beliefs also held and articulated by Lewis.
And on that note, I do think there is still a point where the Lewis-Bell comparison is relevant. I agree with the quoted writer that Lewis's thrust is a defense of orthodox Christianity, and that Bell's thrust feels different, in a troubling way. But if conservatives are going to jump all over Bell not for his general thrust but for the fact that he is an inclusivist who sympathizes with Christian universalists even though he ultimately doesn't agree with universalism, then they need to take a harder look at Lewis's beliefs on those issues and either take a harder line with Lewis or (I would hope) a more generous line with Bell, at least on those specific theological points.
6. Dean
- 11/21/2011 12:13 pm CST
I think the real difference is the audience, at least that's my theory. CS Lewis and Rob Bell resonate with two different types of American Christians. I was raised evangelical, with all the bells and whistles, and I have the benefit of keeping in touch with 90%+ of the kids I grew up with at the church we attended when we were younger (I'm in my early 30s). Here is what I find fascinating, 1/3 of us are now agnostic or atheist, with many in that subset overtly anti-Christian or anti-religious. 1/3 are culturally Christian, I would describe them as "moral therapeutic desists" to borrow the term; they like the comfort and safety of the Christian social framework, but they are generally unconcerned with theological matters. The balance are a mixed bag of Christians who are very concerned with theological matters, but run the gamut from liberal to conservative.
I've found that Rob Bell, and his like, resonate the most with the folks in that third category that have a more "liberal" bent, which is where I find myself. I've read all of this books now and I am startled to find that the ideas and themes are precisely the things I've been thinking and struggling with for 20 years, by myself on my own, having no idea that there might be other Christians who thought or felt the same way. In this sense, his books have really had an impact on my life and my approach to my faith. I don't agree with everything he says or writes, but he is absolutely articulating the sentiment of a large swath of disaffected evangelicals like myself.
I think the confusion many people have with Rob Bell is that they think he is the leader of some movement and that he is somehow leading "good Christian boys and girls" astray with his heretical teachings, as if things would be just fine if he would just shut up and stop causing trouble for Orthodoxy, but in reality, he is a product of something doesn't seem quite right with evangelical Christianity today. He's just a mouthpiece. People like me exist whether or not Rob Bell writes his books, those ideas and questions are out there whether or not they're in print. With folks like Rob Bell putting these things out there, as least we can now have a broader conversation in the church, as brothers and sisters in Christ, about why so many of us can't stomach a lot of what mainstream evangelicals are serving up these days. Otherwise, any talk of ecumenism is just lip service (i.e., either you agree with me or you're a heretic).
7. Dean
- 11/21/2011 12:21 pm CST
BTW, I've read Mere Christianity many times. It's great, I like the book. But I would never give that book to my cynical, well-educated agnostic friends, and absolutely not to "former" Christians. They would take it to town. That's not a rip on CS Lewis, it's just the nature of any attempt to systematize Christianity, you'll just never be able to plug all the holes. I'm not saying that's what Mere Christianity attempts to do that, but it is likely how a non-Christian would respond to it, at least those I tend to associate with. In other words, they'll be looking for the holes, they always do.
8. Bill
- 11/21/2011 12:56 pm CST
Hey Dean,
Thanks for writing. I realize it's kind of a side-track, but I am interested in your sample set and what you've learned from the 1/3 who have left the faith entirely (this is a bit of a passion for me - trying to understand that).
What do you gather from them regarding the reasons they have left the faith? Let me know if you have any insight. Thanks!
9. Dean
- 11/21/2011 6:38 pm CST
Hey Bill, I share your interest in those who have left the faith as I probably have more non-Christian friends than Christian ones and some of my closest friends are non-religious. At least once a year over the past several years now, a "Christian" friend of mine will tell me that they don't believe anymore. Everyone has a story, so I can give you a few and maybe try to make some generalizations from it. A college friend of mine with whom I attended church told me that he never really did believe, he just went along with it because he had many friends at our church. A very good friend of mine who I've known for over 20 years told me that he just stopped hearing from God after a while, I wasn't sure exactly what that meant, but this friend was leading a youth group for several years after he said he longer believed. I asked him why he kept leading the youth group even though he thought the whole thing was fiction and he just said that even if he thought it wasn't true, he thought it had value for the kids he was helping out with. Another college friend of mine told me a month ago she didn't think she was a Christian anymore, mainly because she recently got in a relationship with an atheist and she couldn't reconcile having sex with him and drinking with his buddies every weekend with being a Christian so she thought maybe she wasn't anymore. Another friend of mine went to a Christian fellowship group in college and they eventually told him he wasn't spiritual enough to participate in the worship band (he's a drummer), he left and never looked back.
Hard to really say what it is, obviously it is a complex process, but I think part of it, and this was definitely the case for me, is when as a Christian, you start looking at your life and wondering whether you're even living as a Christian and if not, then why bother with it? This definitely happened to me in college. I have come to the conclusion that the greatest threat to Christianity really is Pelagianism. I think we all really believe in some sort of works based salvation, whether we admit it or not. Every person I have met who used to be a Christian left because they either didn't want to have to live a "Christian lifestyle" or didn't think it made any sense. "Christianity" for most people is inextricably tied to something you need to do, a lifestyle choice, it works for some and not for others, some are born teetotlers and they make good Christians, I happen to really like whiskey so therefore I struggle. Frankly, I'm not sure we as human beings even have the ability to comprehend what it means to be "saved by grace", it's like the concept of infinity, or an 8-dimensional object, it just doesn't compute for us. So there are two sides to this, those that think they certainly have to pay something and can't or don't want to, and those that think others certainly have to pay. How could grace possibly be so cheap as to be free for everyone, doesn't anyone need to pay? How could that math possibly work out?
Anyway, that's where I'm at right now, still feeling my way through the wilderness...
10. Bill
- 11/21/2011 7:01 pm CST
Thanks Dean - I really appreciate your insight.
I think there's a lot of truth to it. I both agree and disagree that we can't understand what saved by grace means. I think that to understand it fully, logically, etc, is impossible, but I think we can certainly understand it in our bones, in our innermost man.
The Christian life is often a lifelong struggle to get faith and works in the right order (one grows out of the other).
I think you've hit at the key - many don't persevere, and that because they think Christianity is a list of dos and don'ts. My heart breaks over the young people I've known who just decided it wasn't worth it.
I'm glad you're hanging in there! God's blessing on you.
11. Karl
- 11/21/2011 7:54 pm CST
I like Dean's thoughts. I'd add that in my observation some people I know who have stopped believing have done so in part because they were brought up in a subculture that did a poor job of distinguishing the core of the faith (what C.S. Lewis so ably articulates for example in Mere Christianity) from peripheral, non-salvific issues.
Therefore they see the whole edifice of their inherited faith, to borrow a metaphor from Rob Bell, as a brick wall that will weaken or collapse if any of the bricks are removed. Indeed, many of them have been taught that this is so - I know I was. So then when they find that they don't believe some of the peripheral matters that were presented to them as part and parcel of the nonnegotiable faith, they think (or maybe more accurately I should say they feel) that they have to chuck it all. Maybe their parents or churches even TELL them (whether explicitly or implicitly) that they might as well chuck it all if they have come to position X on issue Y. Whether the peripheral issue is young earth creationism, women in ministry, Republican politics, or something else, often when they say "you know I just don't think I buy that any more" a break occurs that starts a slow drift/fade. Some of them simply become Christians of a more moderate or liberal stripe politically, theologically or both. Others move to unbelief.
But I don't think that's the only reason people in my generation and the one behind it leave the faith. Just one among many. There are some commonly repeated themes but each person's story is unique. I agree with Dean that a works-based approach to faith is also often at play - either "I can't measure up to that behavioral standard" or "I don't want to even try to live like that; it seems so difficult and unpleasant" or just, "I'd rather be the captain of my own ship, thank you very much."
12. Bill
- 11/23/2011 8:42 am CST
Good words, Karl.
I feel a post coming, and you've hit on it in your last paragraph. Yes, of course, the church (particularly the flavors we have here in the affluent west) has often done a poor job of equipping believers in essentials or giving people reasons to persevere.
But I think the trend has become (not in your words or Dean's but in general) to always blame the church for those that fall away. But in my experience a large number have fallen away because they really just don't want to live a life that pleases God. "Demas, having loved this present world . . .", and all that.
13. Bill
- 11/23/2011 8:44 am CST
. . . and, it should be added, they don't understand that living a life that pleases God is not so much the target as it is the result of being, to use a term from one of my favorite Christian authors :-), awakened by the Gospel.
In another thread, damien commented: "god woke me up in 1974". I love that.
Leave a Comment:
While I think Patton is right that Lewis and Bell are in two different categories, I think it's also interesting that we do tend to ignore Lewis' more fringe beliefs. To many Evangelicals today, would it really matter if Lewis was primarily centered on Christ but also thought there was a Purgatory(for example)?
For me, having the Gospel as primary is enough. But I don't think that would necessarily be the case for all Evangelicals - especially the YRR crowd.