C. S. Lewis
once observed that a well-traveled man is unlikely to fall prey to the local
superstitions of his village; in the same way a scholar, because he has “lived”
in many ages, is not likely to fall for the folly and nonsense of his own age.
Every age
has its own nonsense, but each age tends to have its own “brand” of nonsense.
This is why it is absolutely essential to understand our Christian tradition.
Without knowing our tradition it is impossible to know if an idea or doctrine
is in keeping with orthodox Christianity or if it is a heretical innovation.
Providing young men and women with a foundation in the Christian tradition may
be the most valuable aspect of a classical Christian education. To illustrate
the value of this I’ll discuss a new, popular book about the Bible.
I recently picked
up a copy of Rob Bell’s most recent book What
is the Bible? at the library. First a disclaimer: I did not read the whole
book. That being said, I have read significant chunks of it (it is broken up
like a series of Twitter threads, so it reads really fast).
Bell’s book
takes an innovative approach to the Bible. When discussing the question of
whether or not the Bible is inerrant, Bell writes the following. “Where did
people get the idea that without error is
the highest form of truth? Is the sunset
without error? Is the love between you and the person you’re in love with
without error? Is the best meal you’ve eaten without error? You don’t think about those experiences in
those terms because that would rob those experiences of their depth and joy” (page 282, the italics and bold are in
the original).
To begin
with, these are very poor analogies! The Bible is not like a sunset! It
repeatedly says things that are either true or false and if its promises are
not true, we are fools to believe in them. “I am the way, the truth, and the
life; no one comes to the Father except through me.” That is a truth claim; it
is not something we enjoy like a good meal. If it is true we had better submit
to Christ and trust Him for our salvation; if it is false we had better find
another way. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in
your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” That is not
analogous to being in love! That statement makes a truth claim: it is either
true or false. If it is false my hope for salvation is in vain; if it is true
then I can be confident and live in hope and joy.
When
considering the question “Did Jesus Have to Die?” Bell answers “No. He didn’t.
He was killed” (page 240). However, in the Gospels Jesus repeatedly stated that
He had to die. After His resurrection both His Apostles and His Church came to
share this understanding (c.f. Acts 3:18 and 4:28). On what reasonable basis
can one believe, like Bell, that when Peter said “God was fulfilling what all
the prophets had foretold about the Messiah—that he must suffer these things”
Peter was simply sharing his perspective,
but when, in the very same breath, Peter said “Now repent of your sins and turn
to God, so that your sins may be wiped away” Peter was saying something that we
can rely upon and that we should believe? How can anyone rationally divide the
two and accept the latter claim, while rejecting the former? Peter’s
understanding of salvation must be right or wrong—there is no rational or
Biblical principle that allows us to divide it up and claim part is right and
part is wrong. Furthermore, on what basis is Bell claiming that he is right that
Jesus did not have to die and that Peter is wrong? And why on earth does he
think we should not read the Bible in terms of truth and falsehood?
This is
where it helps to be able to put together what Nietzsche (a very bad man, for
what it is worth, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day) called “a
genealogy of morals.” There are a ton of
unspoken assumptions in Bell’s book. However, students like ours that have read
a number of original sources will be able to see what sources Bell is drawing
from. This in turn will allow them to better understand unstated and
underdeveloped assumptions and premises.
For example,
when discussing the crucifixion Bell states that it is “a story about humanity
growing in maturity, leaving behind the idea that the divine needs blood. . . .
The Bible is a reflection of a growing and expanding human consciousness” (page
245). In similar fashion, when discussing the conquest of the Promised Land
Bell writes “when you read that God told
them to kill everyone in the village, someone
wrote that. That’s how someone understood that event. Don’t drag God into it. The
Bible is a library of books reflecting how human beings have understood the
divine. . . . What you’re reading is someone’s perspective that reflects the
time and the place they lived in. It’s not God’s perspective—it’s theirs.”
(page 295, italics and bold in the original.) Do you get that? According to
Bell, the Bible is not God’s word about Himself and man, it is man’s word about
God. This is not how orthodox Christians have seen the Bible. But if Bell’s is
not an orthodox view of the Bible, where did it come from?
A student
familiar with the history of ideas will immediately say, “oh, that’s a mixture of
Hegel and Natural Religion. Bell also has a lot of existentialism (c.f. chapter
40), with a pinch of post-modernism (c.f. chapter 37), all covered with a light
glaze of New Ageism (c.f. pages 266-267). [I apologize that I only refer to
these ideas, but this post will become far too long if I develop all of them.]
This is nothing new! I’ve seen these ideas before, I’ve seen them articulated
far more persuasively and effectively, and I’ve already worked my way through
many of them. Bell believes the Bible is a collection of books written by
people who put words and ideas into God’s mouth that He never said; if this was
true, I wouldn’t trust these people to give me directions to Kwik Trip, let
alone to instruct me in God’s plan for salvation. Ultimately Bell believes that
the Bible is man’s Tower of Babel—it is our creation, something that we have
constructed in our attempt to reach God (c.f. pages 304-305). I’ve read enough
to know how that works out!”
Specialists
trained to spot counterfeit bills don’t spend their time looking at every type
of false bill. Instead, they look at authentic bills over and over and over and
over and over again. Because they know
the truth they are able to spot the false. In the same way, a student, like
our students, that has read Athanasius, Augustine, Bede, Benedict, Boethius,
Dante, Luther, Lewis, and many more great authors has seen the truth
articulated over and over again—in many ways, in many genres, and in many ages.
Our students have a knowledge of the Christian tradition and because of this
knowledge they can recognize whether or not someone is within that tradition.
Knowing the Christian tradition they will recognize that Bell does not read the
Bible as Christians historically have (he does not even read the Old Testament
the way the New Testament authors do). This isn’t to say that the tradition is
automatically right and Bell is automatically wrong, but instead of directly
engaging the tradition and showing why he is right where Aquinas, Edwards,
Irenaeus, Origen and countless others have been wrong, Bell time and time again
side steps difficult questions by saying he “isn’t interested in those types of
things” or that he is after “higher truths.” A student trained in logic will
not find that compelling in the least! Finally, knowing the Bible, when they
read passages wherein Bell does things like doubt the literal, physical
resurrection of Jesus (page 185) our students will rightly see Bell for who he
is: a false teacher. That is what a classical Christian education provides and
this education is sorely needed.
1st
ReplyDelete