From Sampler to Sower

I (along with I suspect a healthy number of fellow Christians thanks to some brilliant pre-release publicity from John Piper) recently read Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins.  Unlike some other prognosticators, who apparently understand Bell’s reasoning so well they can respond to it before it’s even published, I’ve decided to take some time to think, read, pray, eat and love before chiming in.

Having spent a decent amount of time the last two weeks doing those very things (especially eating…) I think I’m going to start here.

It’s probably an understatement to say that much of what Bell suggests run counter to the faith as it was handed down to me. While Bell isn’t the first to suggest things like the possibility of post-mortem repentance and the idea that maybe, just maybe, God is good enough to save all humanity through faith in Christ (not by at least 17 centuries), suffice it to say there haven’t been many voices in my ecclesial neck of the woods advocating such views.

And that’s what makes Bell’s book such a good thing.

Let me explain.

Tradition or Scripture?

The one thing I most appreciate, even if I don’t necessarily agree, is that Bell attempts to make a reasoned scriptural argument for his view on the afterlife.  Say what you want about Rob Bell (and trust me, people have been) he’s not some fly-by-the-seat-of-your-theological-pants liberal who simply disregards the Bible as a mere human invention and is thereby freed to believe and teach whatever sounds good and reasonable to him. Regardless of how his “LiveStream” discussion may have seemed, his book wrestles with the text and seeks to make sense of God’s Word.

On the other hand, in many ways my understanding of heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived doesn’t start with Scripture. My understanding of these things begins with the faith as it was handed down to me.  The pastors I listened to while growing up, Sunday School teachers, Mom, Dad, college professors and theology textbooks have all affected my understanding of the afterlife more that an in depth examination of what the Bible has to say about it.  I have a belief in the afterlife that is based on a tradition which is rooted in an interpretation of Scripture, but it’s not my interpretation.  At least not yet.

If it does nothing else, Love Wins, calls into question my traditional understanding of my eternal destiny.

And that’s a good thing.

Wesleyan Quadrilaterals and other Geometry

The question of Scripture or tradition brings up interesting questions about epistemology: specifically how do we know anything about God. Obviously everything we know about God, we know because he has revealed himself to us.

Revealing himself through creation, through the Incarnation, and through Scripture, God offers himself to us for contemplation and worship.  But even when considering Scripture, there is never a reading that does not involve interpretation.  Reading itself is an act of interpretation, so the question is how can we be sure we are correctly handling the Word of truth?

Here the teaching of John Wesley can be particularly helpful. Wesleyan scholars have long recognized in his theological activity a pattern of appealing four criteria for weighing various interpretations.  Albert Outler coined the term the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to refer to this pattern.

Every interpretation begins with Scripture.  God’s revelation of himself through the Word is the definitive source for Christian theology.  But not only is Scripture the source of our interpretations, it is one of the criteria by which our interpretations are judged.  We weigh our interpretation of any one passage by the teaching of Scripture as a whole.

Calling into question our interpretations of Scripture and driving us back to Scripture for reconsideration are tradition and experience.  After two millennia of Christian thought, chances are we are not the first to consider any aspect of theology, especially something like the afterlife, which has been a part of Christian thought from the beginning.  Tradition raises questions about our own private interpretations and helps us consider perspectives that on our own we may have overlooked.  Our own personal experience of God’s grace likewise challenges our assumptions and interpretations, especially when, as Mildred Bangs Wynkoop notes, we discover a credibility gap where our theology doesn’t work.

Helping us work through our interpretations of Scripture according to these three criteria is reason.  Unlike the other three, reason is a processor and not a source, but without reason we could not do the analysis and synthesis needed to logically evaluate our interpretations.

Interconnected, but Far From Equal

While Wesley understood that all four criteria have a role to play in evaluating our interpretations, they are not all sources for our theology.  It’s not a democratic process. It’s not as one unnamed theologian quoted by Scott Jones said “I ran the issue of Homosexuality through the quadrilateral and Scripture lost three to one.”

On the contrary, for Wesley and for us, Scripture is the whole and sole rule of faith. The four criteria help us to examine Scripture, and more importantly, they allow Scripture to examine us. If examination is only one-sided — our judging Scripture without, in turn, allowing Scripture to judge us –  it is not theology but abuse.

As much as we might like Bell’s interpretations, as helpful as they may prove in making logical sense of the paradoxes that seemingly exist between God’s wrath and love, we cannot simply accept them because they make reasonable sense.  As valuable as they may prove in reconciling the traditional view of eternity with our experience of a gracious, loving heavenly father, if they aren’t in keeping with Scripture, they are not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

The Hermeneutic Spiral

In his brilliant exploration of John Wesley’s theology, Responsible Grace, Randy Maddox recognizes a pattern in this interplay between Scripture, reason, tradition and experience, a pattern he calls the “hermeneutic spiral.” (Yes, I recognize that Grant Osborne has also used that phrase, or one quite like it, to describe the task of the theologian/preacher. But in this I am referring to Maddox’s work.)

He notices the way in which frequently Wesley begins, not with Scripture, but with a preconception based on his traditional context.  Working from a particular social, religious, cultural and familial context, Wesley’s preunderstandings reflect the tradition of which he was a part.

However, frequently throughout his life, Wesley’s experiences would call those preunderstandings into question.  Perhaps it was an academic experience, something he was reading.  Sometimes it was a pastoral experience, questions raised by parishioners and the situations they brought to him for guidance.  Perhaps most famously, it was a personal experience, like the anxiety he experienced during his Atlantic crossing, his angst over the breakdown of his relationship with Sophie Hopkey, or the strange heart-warming occasioned during his visit to the society meeting on Aldersgate Street.

Regardless of what kind of experience it was, one way or another Wesley’s experiences drove him back to Scripture so that he could examine his preunderstandings.  Once there, thinking through Scripture in light of tradition, reason and experience, Wesley would develop a new, deeper understanding of the question at hand.

Often this deeper understanding was a confirmation of the tradition handed down to him.  Sometimes he had to leave tradition behind and follow the lead of Scripture. Either way his new understanding became the new tradition from which he operated until new experiences drove him back into Scripture again.

However, this was not an endless cycle that merely repeated itself, getting him nowhere. He was not an hyperactive puppy chasing his own theological tail.  Instead of  a circle, this process became a spiral.  Every journey from understanding to Scripture to new understanding moved his knowledge of God and the Word forward.

The Experience that Drives Us To Scripture

That brings us back to Love Wins. Whether we agree with Bell’s understanding of the afterlife or not, the book presents an opportunity to revisit our understandings and dive back into Scripture.

Chances are, you’re much like me. Your expectations about what awaits for humanity beyond the frontier of death are likely largely shaped, not by a careful and reasoned examination of Scripture, but by the tradition of which you are a part. You believe what the Bible says about heaven, hell and the fate of every person that has ever lived. But your knowledge of what the Bible says is shaped by your tradition.

Bell’s book could be the experience that drives you back to Scripture, evaluating your preunderstandings, deepening and affirming those that reflect what the Bible teaches, and rejecting those that do not accurately represent a scriptural faith.

And that’s a good thing.