A post by Glenn Hager took me off to youtube to see a very funny Nooma parody. It was witty, very well-observed, and well put together. You should watch it, if you have seen the Noomas. They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The production of the Noomas is full of all manner of subtleties, and many of these have been faithfully ripped off in Burito here. Is there a spiritual point to this? Not really, only a very cheesy one. Perhaps it's a gentle way of saying that Rob Bell sometimes comes across as a little self-important: but on balance, I think it's just a bit of fun.
But oh dear, oh dear. You can't go to youtube and watch just one clip, can you? There's always something else to catch your eye. Oh, so there are lots more Nooma parodies. Some are in the same vein, just not as good as this one. But some ... are oh so barbed.
My attention was drawn to Bullwhip. (I can't bring myself to make a link to that). It's a parody of Bullhorn, and also very well-observed and put together. Its purpose is far from mere entertaining distraction, though. The original has images of Rob Bell cut in with the journey of a street evangelist, preparing leaflets and going out to shout at people through a megaphone (Bullhorn, in American, it seems). Bell gently argues that this doesn't seem to be working in 21st Century Michigan, and that maybe a more relational approach to sharing Christ might be more suitable. The parody has a Rob Bell-alike cut in with images of Jesus going to the temple taking a bullwhip, shouting and overturning tables. Rob Bell-alike 'argues' that Jesus should stop being so shouty, and do some more relational stuff, with lots of love, instead.
The analogy fails on so many levels. That's not what interests me. What I'm fascinated by is the way that so much effort has been invested to making this video, deliberately and in a calculated way to undermine the ministry of another. And, too, the number of comments attached to Bullwhip of the "yea, you tell'em" variety. Where is the light? Where is the grace? Where is the gentle correction?
I've blogged before about the amount of anger which seems to accompany the reaction of many to the emerging church. I've seen it in other blogs, too; Josh Brown's tussles with Ken Silva, for example. I really want to work out what's going on there.
If the emerging people (and it's far from clear who those are, and whether or not they include Bell, for example) are spreading a terrible heresy, then isn't the correct New Testament response simply to dissociate from them, and have nothing to do with them? Is there a hint of fear in the background here? Fear that cherished beliefs might be wrong, and need changing? Fear that the emergers are "successful" in dominating the agenda, and that others might be side-lined ("not that we measure by numbers..."). Or is it that the general standard of education in America (and the UK) is such that people are simply not understanding the rhetorical style employed by Bell and others? I must say that some people really wilfully seem to miss the point, and fixate on a minor side-issue: well, either they are wilful, or they really are, er, stupid. It's as if the spirit in which they approach things is to look for error, rather than to look for truth. That's damaging and corrosive.
As for me, well my mind isn't made up. But I know we are to judge by the fruits we see. And I know that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. And I know that the fruit of the sinful nature includes hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, and envy. And I know which the Bullwhip people put me in mind of. But maybe I'm wrong.
3 comments:
Andrew ~
I heard McLaren speak recently and talked to him for a minute. I turned to my friend and said that I would like to see McLaren and John MacArthur on the same platform. Both are smart guys and good at making their case, but one comes across as gentle and loving (McLaren) and the other does not.
Herein is what has been the American Evangelical problem, i.e., its all about what you say you believe and a bit an intellectual exercise. I don't find that position well supported in Scripture. I think maybe we didn't have God as well figured out as we thought, but we do know that he wants us to become more like Jesus.
Glenn,
Thanks. Yes, I fear that faith has become far too intellectual, very often. [hm. that gives me an idea for a blog post..]
But it's the way people respond to having faith challenged (really challenged, not just asked the standard questions apologetics deals with) that fascinates me. In fact, I guess this is precisely the issue Rob Bell was dealing with in his oft-misunderstood "What if Jesus had a father named Larry" passage.
If the angry response betrays fear, what is the loving way to continue to make the challenges?
I think a loving response and giving somebody the benefit of the doubt is usually in order. A good argument is not always well received, but love is hard to ignore.
Post a Comment