An Uncertain Gospel

Recently, I entertained myself with an interview of Sir Anthony Hopkins on the Tavis Smiley Show on PBS. You may read the transcript here. Hopkins has a new movie that he is promoting that, by my view of the trailers, appears to be a new epistemic twist to The Exorcist. It's not the movie I am interested in, but the comments of Hopkins on the meaning and perceived enemy portrayed in the film. Smiley asked if certainty is the enemy. "Certainty is the enemy of mankind," responded Hopkins in his distinguished English accent. Hopkins quoted Peter Berger (and for Hopkins' reference, is an American philosopher of Austrian descent) as suggesting that certainty about reality leads to Nazism and the Inquisition, whereas doubting reality makes one wise and stronger. Hopkins continues, "does anyone know of anything? Nobody, not one single human being has an answer. None of us know. Everything is a mystery."

Here in lies an epistemic problem. According to Hopkins, not one person can be sure about anything existing. Thus, for one to see and tree and the image of a tree corresponds in that person's mind as the reality of a tree, Hopkins suggests to doubt that trees exist and he will be the wiser and stronger. This is absurdity. Yet, in this post-modern age, this nonsense passes as intellectual. Even Hopkins suggested that this conversation was being very intellectual. No, Sir Hopkins, it is an absurdity. You may wish to make-believe that brick walls exist, but running into them will still hurt. Truth is, reality is true whether we agree or even wish it not to exist. So, you may ask, why all this diatribe on Hopkins. He's an aged actor staging as a philosopher. No one really believes this, do they? Who lives as Hopkins says "I live in doubt all the time....I think doubt is a very healthy way to live." Now to my point.

You may have heard recently that Rob Bell broke with orthodox Christian teaching by suggesting that the doctrine of hell is keeping people from loving Jesus, and thus needs to be removed. I will point the reader to a well written article by Dr. Al Mohler here. I will not rehash arguments against Bell; furthermore, I would suggest that Rob Bell was never orthodox.To make this clear to my congregation, Rob Bell is to be avoided. My beef is not merely with Bell, but with this entire postmodern junk gospel known as Emerging Church Movement. Brian McLaren sought to defend Bell with his article "Will Loves Wins Win?" In his article, McLaren muddies the water with more postmodern epistemology, contending that a clear idea of what the gospel says cannot be attained because of communication barriers between the speaker and reader as well as cultural time barriers. In other words, the true meaning of the gospel is uncertain and to be remained in doubt, especially considering the varying versions of Christianity.

Between Rob Bell's questioning (resembling that of the serpent "has God indeed said...") and McLaren's doubting communication epistemology, this repackaged postmodern doubt of any certainty is nothing but worldly philosophy clouting God's creation as reality and His communication skills in His Word. If the Bible cannot be trusted and meaning attained by the reader with any degree of certainty, then God has a stuttering problem. If God cannot utilize language, which He created, with any effective degree that readers can obtain not just meaning, but truth of the reality in which God is attempting to reveal, then God cannot be trusted with anything. Furthermore, Rob Bell attempted to defend himself on CNN recently. Bell's fans sum up my argument quite well: "He (Rob Bell) leaves it open-ended. He lets you think and draw your own conclusions for yourself instead of spoon-feeding what he grew up hearing or what he was taught in seminary." In other words, Rob Bell doubts all truth claims of the Scripture and allows the audience to draw their own conclusions of truth from the Bible. This garbage epistemology is called reader-response criticism. This claims that truth is not in what was said, but is entirely reliant on the hearer to derive whether it corresponds to reality or not. For instance, back to the tree and brick wall illustrations. A tree is in front of 3 people. One sees a tree, another a lollipop, and again another sees a kind old woman. The two that observe a lollipop and a kind, old woman in Bell's (and postmodern) perception is equally true and valid to the one viewing the tree as a tree. The problem arises when the second licks the tree and finds that it does not taste like a lollipop, and the third has a conversation and a hug with the tree and does not find it as warm as a kind, old woman. These do not correspond to reality. Catching on? Consider 3 persons in front of a brick wall. One sees a brick wall, another has been convinced that it is a soft, feather mattress. And again another observes a Philly cheese steak. Once the second runs and hits the wall and finds it not as soft as a feather mattress, something is wrong with the person perceiving and not the truth of the wall. The brick wall is a brick wall, regardless of the one viewing. Derive your own comical conclusions with a Philly cheese steak.

Okay, now for a little bit more of a layman's understanding for clarity as a conclusion. Suggesting that the Bible, or more specifically the gospel, is open to interpretation by each hearer and not true in its own claims is as equally as absurd as seeing a brick wall as a soft, feather mattress and living life accordingly. To suggest that hell does not exist because it is inconsistent with Rob Bell's perception of a benevolent God (this requires the Bible to define "good" and "just") even though the Bible teaches that hell does indeed exist is living in fantasy land. The gospel, in the postmodern view, is uncertain just like Hopkins' view of all reality. It is an absurd way to live. More importantly, it is an absurd way to pretend to be Christian.