In this chapter Bell expounds on the episode when the Israelites were without water in the desert. When Moses struck the rock, water poured out (of the cliff). Later, in the New Testament, Paul refers to this incident: "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).
Bell expounds on this “Presence” as being “an energy in the world, a spark, a current with which everything is in contact. The Greeks call it the" zoe ", the mystics call the "spirit ", and Obi-Wan calls it "the power " (p. 144).
Bell continues the chain of thought that, just as the Israelites met Jesus in the rock, anyone can, even Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can encounter Jesus, without knowing that it is Jesus; without even knowing that Jesus exists.
I doubt very much that this theory will hold up. All the spiritual energy we encounter in life and in different religions cannot, of course, be Jesus. In fact, the Bible says that evil spirits and false gods influence us. Can one worship someone / something one does not know or recognize? Is it reasonable to worship just anyone/anything at all? And if we can encounter Jesus in many different religions, was it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross? Are there different paths to the Father?
Here I want to be absolutely clear:
-Rob Bell does not say that there are multiple paths to the Father
-Rob Bell says that Jesus is the only way
-Rob Bell does not say that it doesn’t matter which religion one adheres to ...
.... But yet, is that not exactly what he’s saying ?
Rob Bell is seemingly deliberately ambiguous.
Bell has just released a video wherein he denies that he is a universalist (that all people are ‘saved’ in the end, no matter how they live their lives). Concurrently, according to many who read Rob Bell's book, they deem Bell a universalist.
Stephen Sward, who was for many years Chairman of the Swedish Evangelical Free Church, shares that he has now perused Bell's book for the third time, and confirms that Bell is a universalist.
How is it possible that so many people around the world write, subsequent to reading "Love Wins", that Bell is a universalist, while he himself denies it? Can’t they read properly? Do they not comprehend what he writes?
The reason is that Bell's style of writing expresses both ‘this’, but also ‘that’… There are clear statements that suggest that Bell is a universalist and abstract statements that suggest that Bell is not a universalist. Bell's narrative art allows for both ‘one and the same’ but also ‘either/ or’. Yes is not a definitive yes and no is not a definitive no. It is clear that a presentation using such style creates confusion. If Bell thinks he has something important to drive home, he should endeavor to be understood. Instead it appears as if Bell purposely strives to be misunderstood. (ambiguous)
It is the same in this chapter. In reading the chapter, one can easily get the impression that the presence of Jesus is a spiritual energy. When, for example, participating in occult séances and asking for the spirits’ presence, Jesus' spirit can appear along with the other spirits without knowing that it is Jesus, or even knowing that Jesus exists. Is this what Bell wants to convey?
Or if you worship Allah or any of the Hindu gods, it may well be that suddenly you may be praying to, or worshiping Jesus, without knowing it. Even without knowing that Jesus exists. Is this what Bell means?
In intentionally remaining ambiguous Bell can afford to express whatever views he wishes without taking responsibility for those views. Then Bell can step forward; deny and distance himself from what he’s written. It is probably this that has caused such frenzy about a book that really has no clear (distinct) message.
To be continued
Peter Baronowsky
PS
This is not an attempt at a scientific analysis of Rob Bell's theology. This is a blog post. Blog entries typically express the spontaneous reaction to what we encounter in life. This is my spontaneous reaction when reading Rob Bell's book.
Translation from Swedish: Dr. Sven Ljungholm
No comments:
Post a Comment