May 23, 2011
The Bible between Bell’s Hell and Camping’s Failed Prediction
Christians and our Bible have taken a huge hammering in the last few months. And it’s all our own fault.
First there was Bell
First we had Rob Bell with his short-lived hell controversy. By questioning (or appearing to question) the notion that hell is final, he got everyone from the pews to the seminaries talking, arguing and even denouncing each other. Somewhere in the middle of this fracas lay the Bible. Sure Rob claimed a biblical basis for his view. What pastor doesn’t. And it’s not really that relevant for my purposes whether he was right or not. My point here is that Rob and the reaction to him helped to perpetuate the widespread impression that
- no one really has any idea what the Bible says
- It’s not even consistent enough to teach a coherent message
- Only religious zealots think they know what it says.
Case in point: all these Christians have believed for millenia that the Bible teaches hell when all along it doesn’t. Or it might not. Or Rob Bell might have suggested that it might not. Thank you Rob for 1) Bringing up a controversial question and 2) not answering it 3) and thus leaving everyone with the impression that the Bible is completely unclear about something Christians have always thought was clear.
Then there was Camping
What Rob Bell lacks in clarity, Harold camping makes up in conviction. Here’s Rob’s nemesis. Camping is not
interested in “raising questions” or “exploring his beliefs” or “grappling with mysteries.” He knows only certainty and his certainty is guaranteed by the Bible, as his many signs proclaim. I am fairly certain that almost no non-Christians believed his prediction. Who would? Everyone already knows that the Bible is notoriously difficult to interpret and that people who base their hopes on that text will be deeply disappointed.
What Rob Bell took away, Harold Camping gave back: the finality of judgment. But what they have in common is this: their failure to treat the Bible fairly and rationally has left the impression that the Bible’s real message is inscrutable. Further, anyone who thinks that the Bible teaches anything clearly is most likely unbalanced and delusional.
Facebook
RSS
7 Responses to The Bible between Bell’s Hell and Camping’s Failed Prediction
I agree, the middle ground has come off pretty badly on this one. I was working on a church Vision Day yesterday where the issue was Incarnational mission, in particular crossing epochal culture gaps on the scale of what confronts us Post-Christendom. The reflection was entitled ‘Why Jerusalem Needs Antioch (and visa versa): http://radref.blogspot.com/2011/05/jerusalem-needs-antioch-and-visa-versa.html. Looking at what happened twenty centuries later it’s so hard to place ourselves in the position of that original Jerusalem church: all Jews, no Gentiles. It’s one of those ‘what if’s’ but ‘the Way’ could have ended up as just one Jewish sect abandoned somewhere on the roadside between Jerusalem and Antioch. The cultural and theological shift necessary to bridge the gap with Gentiles was every bit as huge to 1st Century Jewish believers as the idea of changing our minds about hell (or homosexuality) is to 21st Century Christians. I think the clue as to the legitmancy or otherwise of making the shift lies in what is discernible in the ‘grain’ of Scripture. Early Christians did make a leap from Judaism but it was a leap with the flow of the Old Testament and not against it.
That’s a longwinded way of agreeing with you. I have abandoned literalism but not biblcial coherence.
Thanks Phil – I’m glad to see that I’m not coming across (at least to you) as someone who is simplistically affirming that the Bible says what it says and only an idiot can see what is patently there. I think that the new thing for the Jewish Christian was Jesus, the Messiah and the dangling implication that his identity was even greater than Messiah. The OT bolstered and pushed in the direction of interpreting the Jesus-event. That’s what ties it all together.
Hello Rob,
I feel the need to respond to your blog because it relates to some of the thoughts I’m currently working through.
First of all, I’m not sure Bell (you’re still talking about him, so I wouldn’t call the “controversy” over) was saying Hell isn’t final. I think he was saying it will eventually be empty on nearly so. Afterall, it is God’s desire, right?
Secondly, you infer the Bible is so plainly read and easy to understand. I disagree. It surely isn’t for me. The number of denominations seem to uphold my view. Let me demonstrate. The following are words purported to be direct from Jesus’ mouth:
John 6:47
I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Matt 7:21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Using these statements made by God Himself, which is it – I just need to believe, I need to believe AND be baptized, OR does the preceding really not matter, I just need to do the will of God? A combination of the three, maybe? Which?
Maybe, it’s none of the above. Afterall, I haven’t seen anyone moving mountains.
Matt 21:21 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.
It’s all so simple and obvious….
Thanks Les. Always good to get your perspective. The Bell view: I’m not sure I see a difference between what I’m saying and what you are saying. Being final = will be empty, right? And Love Wins!
But the rest is more interesting. I am not saying that the Bible is easy to understand, but I am saying that it is understandable. Sometimes that might take work. I’m also saying that there are some questions difficult to discern and others not so difficult, and in my opinion both Bell and Camping are treading in the area of basic misinterpretations (Bell is less out there, of course). But I don’t think these passages you present are a contradiction to what I’m saying: Belief isn’t “just assert intellectually”, as it is often taken. The biblical presentation of belief is very much tied up with behavior. That’s why some people in the Bible are declared “saved” because of things they do. James is the one that lays this all out, of course. But even if he hadn’t, there is a lot of evidence that this is the case throughout Scripture. Baptism is a ceremony. Sometimes it’s mentioned, sometimes it isn’t. It would hardly fit with the myriad statements about salvation to suddenly insist that unless you perform this one outward act God would not accept you. Statements about moving mountains, cutting off hands and poking out eyes must surely be creative exaggeration. Let’s not forget that we have in the Bible the production of ancient Jewish writers, who are used to making their points creatively, provocatively and symbolically. BUT they are still making a point! We can compare verses and come up with all sorts of contradictions, but I think that reading the Bible as a whole makes an enormous difference. I think the entire problem is really that we actually deal with the Bible so very little when it comes down to it.
You are inspiring another blog post Les: Is the Bible really so hard to understand? It’s all going to be your fault!
Thanks for the reply, Rob. I should probably steer clear of these discussions. I thought you were dismissing the view that hell might not be as final the mainstream church now believes.
And on the understandability (is that a word?) of the Bible, you miss my point. We each understand it in our own way. Even on the point of baptism, there are differences of opinion. As an example, no matter what your interpretation of God’s words on baptism, I can show you an entire denomination(s) that disagree with your view. In fact, there’s plenty of disagreement even on HOW to baptize.
So yes, the Bible is easy to understand, we just all understand it differently ; ).
Hey Les – I hope you’ll chime in on the post you inspired, which I will publish tomorrow. It goes towards showing that just because there are lots of interpretations of something it does not necessarily mean that the problem lies in the thing that is being interpreted. The how to baptizes question is perfect, in fact. It will receive an answer. Amen.
[...] Yesterday I claimed that Bell and Camping have together left the impression that the meaning of the Bible is up for grabs. But is the Bible really so hard to understand? Is it really so contradictory or nebulous? I don’t think so. But why does it seem to be? Karl Barth helps us get at this question by personifying the Bible. He imagines how the Bible might respond to some question or another that an individual brings to it. The Bible might say, [...]