This week I borrowed a copy of Rob Bell's latest book from a friend and have thus far enjoyed reading the first couple chapters. My decision not to purchase the book had less to do with the books content and more to do with the fact that money was tight this month. I was determined to find some more time over the holiday weekend to really dig in and discover for myself what all the fuss is about.

I can relate to what Jimmy Spencer has said about the book; that it might represent a sort of tipping point where we might begin to see the younger, more progressive evangelicals begin to migrate towards mainline churches while older, entrenched conservatives hold their ground. He doesn't suggest that this spilt is over anything particularly new and yet the momentum has been building for some time and now we may see some drastic changes.

I think it is admirable that Bell makes it very clear in the preface that... nothing in this book hasn't been taught, suggested, or celebrated by many before me. I haven't come up with a radical new teaching that's any kind of departure from what's been said an untold number of times. That's the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. It's a deep, wide, diverse stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences.

Frankly, most evangelicals I know don't get so excited about this diversity of thought and they certainly don't think the variety of perspectives on some things is so beautiful. Most church-going folks would prefer that everyone think and believe just like they do and anyone that doesn't is well... just wrong.

On point, Christena Cleveland writes:

Armed with the belief that our perspective is entirely right, we easily come up with reasons why other perspectives aren't valuable and why dissenting voices should be extinguished.

She continues... Rather than giving serious, respectful thought to the viewpoint with which we disagreed, we dug our heels even deeper into the ground of our pre-existing theological beliefs, unwilling to consider other ideas. An event that should have triggered respectful conversation across theological lines led to divisions that are even more dogmatic and deaf than before! It was both predictable and sad.

And then asks... So why are we so stubbornly opposed to the idea that we might learn something from another theological viewpoint?

The answer to her question is quite simple; we are so risk-averse that we wouldn't dare consider giving another person's viewpoint some genuine thought and consideration. And why is that? Because we wouldn't want to risk the chance of being wrong.

It is apparent that Bell intends to raise more questions that he intends to offer answers; this I suspect is why some of us are so frustrated with the book. Bell writes in Chapter 2... The answer, it turns out, is in the question.

Christena points out that most of us hate ambiguity- social psychologists have studied a phenomenon called need for cognitive closure which is defined as an individual's "need for a firm answer to a question, any firm answer as opposed to confusion and/or ambiguity".

For those of us who persist in the modern era, we can't stand the idea that something might not make sense. We are all about our answers, our absolutes, everything comes with an answer.

As I approach the next several chapters, I am not in search for answers or a new set of beliefs. I am looking for another opportunity to see another person's perspective of the beliefs I have long held. I anticipate reading some things that I may not agree with and yet I am determined not be defensive, let it anger me, or allow me to stumble. I will take some notes and post them here for those who are interested.

Jason