The Second Punch Always Draws the Flag

We've seen it countless times in sports. Player 1 provokes player 2, probably several times during the course of a game with verbal jabs or some illegal form of holding, punching, grabbing, all just out of the sight of the official. Then player 2 in frustration retaliates with a push or a punch and the whistle blows. Player 2 is penalized, ejected, suspended while player 1 gets away with no penalty. We all agree player 2 should have kept his cool. But we wish player 1 would be held accountable.

I wonder if we don't see a similar scenario in the theological debates between the "conservatives" and the "progressives" that keep bubbling to the surface in news reports, the latest being the flap over Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins".

Here's what I mean. Conservatives generally are in a defensive posture. They see themselves as “watchmen”. Their intent is to "conserve". When it comes to basic orthodox belief, the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ as God-Man, they will quickly react if someone approaches denial of either tenet of the faith. TD Jakes and Phillips Craig and Dean have been questioned regarding the Trinity, for example. Likewise Evangelicals will be quick to respond when certain Evangelical basics are challenged, such as the "Solas", Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia. The Virgin Birth, to the conservative is an essential as is the bodily resurrection. For the conservative, it is the duty of the church leader to "guard the deposit" of the faith because the apostle's teaching is the foundation of everything else.

Many of the cutting edge thinkers in the post-modern era do not locate the faith in revealed propositional truth. Scripture, for these, is not inerrant, not divinely inspired if that means the human element is minimized. As such, "the faith" is not static. It is dynamic. It is shaped by the Holy Spirit in the context of changing cultures. For those who have rejected conservative Christianity, reconsidering same-sex marriage is no less permissible and even necessary than reconsidering the church's stance on slavery.

And so, progressives continue to push at the boundaries, to question pretty much every established "truth". Was Paul's cosmology part of divine revelation or inherited from his culture? Is the Trinity a summation of unfathomable scriptural truth or is it a philosophical formulation from a Hellenistic paradigm? Is Hell a destination for eternal judgment or is it an "interpretation" owing more to Dante's Inferno than the real "spirit of Jesus"?

Since, in the mind of a post-modern theologian, theological progress is made by boldly moving forward and breaking the shackles of old paradigms, everything must be questioned. Since for many post-modern church leaders, truth is culture bound and can never be fully captured in human language, definitions are loose, vague, often contradictory. And since nothing is more arrogant than claiming to know truth, no one is more worthy of having his theological nose tweaked than the theological conservative.

So the provocative statements keep coming. They are not merely provocative, they are often disrespectful and crude. Without naming names, a few examples may suffice. Conservatives are portrayed as imprisoned in a modernist paradigm where thought patterns owe more to enlightenment rationalism than to Christianity. Those concerned with traditional moral values are engaged in "adventures in missing the point". The virgin birth is one of many doctrines that, like a single brick in a wall, can fall away without compromising the wall. Those whose understanding of the world includes fiscal conservatism can without remorse be referred to with a vulgar sexual slur "teabagger". Those who refuse to consider same-sex unions are motivated by homophobia and fail to understand the cultural context of relevant biblical passages. Those who desire laws that protect the unborn and a nuclear family are addicted to power. Conservatives are accused of gleefully celebrating the doctrine of Hell, of thinking of themselves as the privileged "us" and the unbelievers as the despised "them" and thus labeled as arrogant and vengeful.

I've noted that those who defend Rob Bell, valiantly, passionately and at length have, to the best of my knowledge, never asked for a more evenhanded representation of conservative views from those who make statements like those above. So the statements keep coming - provoke, jab, taunt, dismiss, disrespect, chide.

And what happens when the conservative responds?

What happens is what we see in the Rob Bell flap. Bell is the one whose language is vague, non-committal. His questioning of the traditional understanding of Hell is, at least, provocative. Reviewers have noted with direct quotes that he has written that one who sees belief in Hell as a part of the full biblical picture advocates a belief that is "toxic". He claims to not be a bible scholar or theologian on one hand, but puts forth in a FOX News interview a sophisticated linguistic analysis of the original Greek word for eternity that suggests first century believers did not think of eternity in reference to a future state, thus implying those who see the lake of fire in Revelation as a concrete future reality have been wrong all these centuries. He claimed in that same interview to still believe in Hell but defines it in such a vague way as to be quite open to interpretation about what he really means. He instead seems to make central the idea that Hell refers to our suffering in the here and now, at least downplaying the view that hell is a future state of judgment. His book is provocative in what it implies and in what it leaves open-ended, and it is provocative in what it suggests about the traditional conservative view.

But when conservatives publish long, detailed, respectful and footnoted responses to Rob Bell, with careful scripture references and analysis of gaps in Bell's exegesis, all we hear about from the progressives is how "mean-spirited" and un-Christlike the conservatives are. We're told conservatives are intentionally misrepresenting Rob Bell's book.

Now much of this could easily be cleared up by Bell himself. Let me suggest this little word: Clarity. Rob Bell could easily state clearly whether he believes there will be human beings who will face eternal judgment after death. Whether he does or does not, his clear response would be a statement we can all engage with and if necessary agree to disagree. That is the sort of statement that our proverbial official might be able to throw a flag over, and Bell might be the one who would be penalized. Instead, with the provocative and generally vague statements shielded in the subjective realm of "interpretation" his defenders point the finger at his critics and cry "unfair!", begging the ref to throw the flag not at the one provoking, but at the one provoked.

I understand that many critiqued Bell's book before it was published based on a promotional video. They had not read the book. But was the video not provocative in and of itself? Was the video not a poke in the eye toward those whose view of the doctrine of hell is fairly traditional? Did Rob Bell and his publisher not anticipate that an open-ended questioning of beliefs that seem to most Evangelicals to be fairly well attested in scripture might stir controversy? Is anyone really shocked that questioning a long held belief in eternal judgment generated controversy?

So Rob Bell promotes a book with a video that is deeply troubling to conservatives, follows it up with a book that remains deeply troubling to conservatives, and conservatives do what conservatives do, examine his exegesis, parse his statements and compare it all to biblical references and their various statements of faith. Progressives cry foul at the critique of Rob Bell’s thesis, but see nothing but valiance in his pushing the envelope with open-ended questions, a dearth of clarity and a portrayal of conservatives as those who tell a FALSE story about Jesus that is disgusting to the world. Quoting from Bell’s Preface: “There are a growing number of us who have become acutely aware that Jesus’s story has been hijacked by a number of other stories, stories Jesus isn’t interested in telling, because they have nothing to do with what He came to do. The plot has been lost, and it’s time to reclaim it. I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter those resolute words, “I wound never be a part of that.”

Are we really to believe Rob Bell had no idea those words would seem a slap in the face to a huge number of evangelicals? Does it never occur to Bell's defenders that he has at least some responsibility to accurately portray the position of conservatives regarding God being both loving AND just?

Sure, we should be gracious and not over-react. Sure we should try to be accurate in our portrayal of another's position. But when will the double standard stop?

I don't relish angry exchanges with those who disagree with me about any issue. Not at all. But I at least want a fair debate. I'd happily have an honest debate where terms are defined, where my views are fairly represented and respected and the rules fairly enforced. If I disagree with someone, fine. If they disagree with me - no problem. I've had plenty of debates over the years about very serious theological issues and been able to shake hands afterword. Debates about Calvinism, eschatology and divorce come to mind as examples of long detailed debates that did not lead to divisive bitter exchanges.

But I don't care to deal in petty charges of fairness when terms are ill-defined and only one side is held accountable for the events that led to the altercation.

Sure, John Piper may have been well advised not to tweet "farewell, Rob Bell".

But who threw the first punch?