Stoner writes ...
Paul, when he shares the Gospel with pagans on Mars Hill, appropriates what is good in the Athenian belief system. He is not a committed cultural evacuator. He does not jettison all of paganism as evil. Nor does he contend that they must burn down the temples, the scrolls, the ancient writings, nor stop dancing, or enjoying the plays, or the feasts. He does not fulminate against what is truly good in culture for he recognizes that there is much truth embedded in it. So he affirms what he can. This is where Rob Bell and Paul can properly be compared, but, it is easy to miss this: Paul draws close strategically, so he can use the rhetorical stiletto with greatest effect. Rob, on the other hand, never draws the knife (or the sword, to use Jesus’ metaphor—Mt. 10:34). He is convinced it is an instrument of violence and oppression and has been “subverted” or done away with by Jesus.
Before I let Stoner continue, please don't misunderstand, I'm not a Rob Bell hater. He's said some good stuff. But mostly he says pointless stuff and even some erroneous stuff. The guy is a thought provoker but not a Bible teacher and personally, not a model for faithful communication. Back to Stoner ...
What distinguishes Paul’s and Rob’s use of culture as a starting point is that while Paul may choose to begin there, he does not end there. He affirms the good while boldly, and unapologetically (and, perhaps even more significantly, clearly) correcting the wrong. Nobody ever could leave a Pauline lecture wondering whether there were several other viable paths to the Father than by believing in, submitting to, and purposefully dedicating your life to Jesus as exclusive Lord and Christ. Paul is not embarrassed by exclusive, intolerant, absolutist claims. Were he at the Mars Hill today (in Greece or Grand Rapids), while he might start with cultural irony, ambiguity, mystery and inclusion he would do much more than mildly and diplomatically disagree. He would eventually shatter each one of those rhetorical and philosophical positions and postures. Before Paul begins his speech it is instructive to note his state of mind. Luke tells us that “the apostle’s whole soul was revolted” (paroxyno–Acts 17:16, JB). This intense provocation was due to the countless idols that dominate the city.
While Paul did appreciate elements of Athenian culture, this approval is overwhelmed by an internal paroxysm of dismay (in I Cor 13:5 paroxyno is translated as “angered”). So, the speaker who is taking the Mars Hill podium does not come to applaud or stroke the egos of these residents living in the epicenter of Greek culture. No, this man is in great emotional turmoil—probably even a little angry—at the city’s obsessive and ultimately sef-destructive idolatry.
For more on Paul's attitude here, see John Stott's The Message of Acts in which he writes, "So the pain or `paroxysm' which Paul felt for Athens was due neither to bad temper, not to pity for the Athenians' ignorance, nor even to fear for their eternal salvation. It was due rather to his abhorrence of idolatry, which aroused within him deep stirrings of jealousy for the Name of God, as he saw human beings so depraved as to be giving idols the honour and glory which were due to the one, living and true God alone. `His whole soul was revolted at the sight of a city given over to idolatry' (JB)." Stoner continues ...
In Athens Paul recites the valid insights of their philosophers, speaks affirmatively of their spiritual hunger (“I see that in every way you are very religious”). He moves toward them by stressing that God gives life to everyone and is not far from anyone. (17:27). He also lowers their defenses by distancing himself from the elitism and religious exclusivism of his own culture (“God does not dwell in hand-made temples”—such as in Jerusalem). The apostle is seeking common ground with his audience by affirming their culture while also admitting where he finds weaknesses in his own.
Paul is aware that he is speaking to an overly-educated, rhetorically proficient gathering of polytheists. This is not the monthly meeting of militant Ivy League atheists. These are avowed theists who believe not in one God but many—perhaps thousands. And these are deities made with human hands out of solid materials and live in temples. So, we should not miss that when Paul distances himself from the Jews who believe God lives in the Jerusalem Temple, he is also rejecting the truth as the Athenians already understood it as well.
The apostle to the gentiles goes further. He unapologetically repudiates their belief system by declaring that their “unknown god” is the God who made every single thing in all of creation. This Supreme Being is the One who controls all of reality, weather, crops, child bearing, health, prosperity, sexual virility and death—everything their multiplicity of gods were supposed to have jurisdiction over. Further, this God (unlike theirs) does not need his acolytes to bring him food or money to appease His voracious appetite (17:24-26). Nor can this God be seen or touched. He is not crafted from matter, gilded with precious metal and affixed to marble bases (17:29).
What Paul is saying, gently but firmly, is that their polytheism is erroneous. There is one God who is sovereign over all for He is creator and sustainer of all that exists. Therefore, the Athenian devotion to a multiplicity of capricious gods with competing claims and demands is completely misplaced. Having entirely debunked their polytheistic system he then explains that the patience of this God above all gods has run out. Whereas in the past He overlooked this ignorant foolishness, He is now issuing an absolute demand on all people to change their wrong thinking– “repent” (17:29-31). The strong incentive Paul gives to repentance and complete surrender is this warning: “He has fixed a day in which all will be judged” (17:31). And the One who will sit in judgment is the man whom God raised from the dead, and the criterion of judgment will be perfect and implacable rectitude. The implication is that nobody is going to be acquitted when they must account for themselves in light of that daunting standard. It is not surprising that at that point the philosophers got upset and started launching ad homonyms.
There are those who make much of Paul’s failure to threaten the Athenians with “eternal hell.” They conclude that his evangelistic message (unlike those of conservatives today) avoided the topic. I think this conclusion misplaced since the absence of those words were quite probably unintentional, since Paul’s warning was drowned out, mid-sentence, by mocking laughter which prevented him from drawing his speech to a close. To conclude based on that omission that there was no place for Hell in Paul’s message to pagans (and imply that there should not be in ours) is mistaken. It can only be supported by dismissing clear texts where Paul does finish his thought and is explicit about the relationship between disobedient pagans and eternal torment.
To the Romans he warns unrepentant Gentiles and Jews: “you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath when His righteous judgment will be revealed. . . there will be wrath and anger. . . for every human being who does evil” (Rom. 2:5,9). Likewise, to the Thessalonians, Paul expresses his belief that Jesus will return in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who do not know God. “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord” (II Th. 1:7-9).So, whatever the reason for the silence about Hell in Athens it was not due to Paul’s uncertainty about the final destination of rebel pagans.
Paul’s message at Mars Hill was essentially this: there is only one God, and God calls everyone to repent of their error in worshiping empty idols. Those who don’t repent will be judged by a man resurrected by God. Rob and other current teachers assert that the good news does not polarize. To the contrary, exclusive and corrective language is always divisive, regardless of the motive and delivery. That is the nature of language and human nature.The truth is, it stirred controversy at the Aeropagus as well. Some sneered, others wanted to discuss things later and others believed (Act 17:32-34). The same message resulted in a “great disturbance” in Ephesus. (Acts 19:23). This is not a surprise since at the beginning of his ministry Jesus warned Paul that the schism he would cause would be extreme (Acts 26:17). In this Paul was only following the example of His Master who declared that he came to bring not peace, “but division” (Lk. 12:51).
In his final summation to Agrippa, a Gentile king, Paul explains to him what motivated his speech at Mars Hill and all the other speeches as well. He says that Christ sent him to Jew and Gentile with explicit instructions to “open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17-18).
When Paul set foot in Athens this apostolic imperative was not set aside. Far from believing that Athens did not need to be converted, he was heartsick at its rampant idolatry and at the sexual perversion that inevitably accompanied it. As he stood on Mars Hill the evangelistic strategy he summarized before Agrippa remained intact: to see as many Gentiles as possible freed from the power of Satan’s lies by which they were blinded and held captive.
Nowhere is the divergence between Paul and Rob more evident than in their motivation and conclusion. For Rob the task of the evangelist is to convince the audience to “accept the reality that you are forgiven.” However, nowhere in the New Testament is the Gospel presented as indiscriminate pronouncement of universal absolution. That is what universalists believe, but it is not what Jesus, or the apostles, or the early church fathers and mothers believed. It is certainly not what Paul did either.
Early in his apostolic mission Paul insists that only through Jesus is forgiveness of sins proclaimed. But, he is very careful to qualify the good news. This is not a pronouncement of a universal forgiveness, for only the one “who believes is justified” (Acts 13:38-39). Later Paul summarizes his exclusive evangelistic message to a pagan in ten words: “believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” (16:17). Thus, no belief, no salvation.
In the most extensive theological treatise in the Bible Paul declares that the righteousness God imparts comes “through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Rom. 3:22). He then states that God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of atonement “through faith in His blood . . . so that God could be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:25-26). Those who are justified by faith in the blood of Jesus are saved from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). Paul describes those who have not been saved through faith–the “disobedient” as those who “by nature are objects of wrath” (Eph. 2:3).
The good news for Paul is not “you have been forgiven by Christ” but, “Christ has offered Himself as a sacrifice for your sin, come to Him in faith, repent of your sin and you will be forgiven.” Forgiveness is conditioned on faith. This is the same message that Jesus proclaimed: “God so loved the world that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). It is this vision and conviction of the Gospel as a matter of life and death that is absent in Rob’s speech. I think this is why he can engage with culture without exposing, correcting and rejecting its messianic lies.
Bottom line - we needs Pauls not Robs.
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church
No comments:
Post a Comment