His work is usually a bit provocative, and he can, at times, be considered a bit of an iconoclast (one firmly placed within evangelical orthodoxy). So what's all the hype about this time? I understand that in his new book, Bell promotes a version of theological universalism. For a good article on Bell's thought as well as the thought of his detractors... click here!
Frankly, I am not interested in this debate. I would rather meditate on scripture and the Church Fathers as well as a few modern theologians than engage a debate between Bell and Piper et al. So why am I even writing this post? When I read the CNN piece I was bothered by the use of TWITTER as a means of comment and dialogue with Bell on this issue. I mean it is, after all, a complicated issue.
Our world is a world of easy publishing and fast paced social media; is this the best place to dialogue concerning serious theological issues? I am afraid that social media (and even book publishing) offers us less than adequate forums for dialogue. I mean, can you even dialogue or have a meaningful remark in 140 characters? And aren't book publishers really in this to make a profit? It seems that theological dialogue is a bit impoverished because of the following reasons: modern forms of communication (or lack there of), speaking apart from rather than within a tradition (so we buck all authority), the desire for more options (capitalism has infiltrated faith), and the desire to have quick and easy answers.
Oddly, I am more concerned with the way people have interacted with Bell on Twitter than I am about that fact that he is now a supposed universalist. Um....but as my friend Clint Dickson reminds me, I am asking this question on a blog...can we have meaningful dialogue on a blog?
Too many questions, too little time. I guess, for now, I will avoid twitter as a place for prescriptive dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment