Sex God May 16, 2007
Posted by yuling in Reading.trackback
Rob Bell’s second outing as an author explores “the endless connections between sexuality and spirituality” (from the subtitle). I’m not so sure about the design of the book (I liked his simple MAC-like attempt for his first book – Velvet Elvis), but the content is Vintage Bell – just love it.
Since I regularly listen to Rob’s sermons, I was familiar with many of his ideas. It’s always interesting to see how the spoken word gets translated (and perhaps altered/refined?) into the written word. Makes me wonder how the oral tradition of the Christian faith became the written word of the Bible.
I love Rob’s humility – he would frequently say that ‘the sermon’ (or in this case, the book) is the beginning of the conversation. His aim is to invite fellow travellers to enter into this journey of contemplating the deep issue of sexuality and then deepen our understanding through conversation.
The root of the word sex comes from secare, meaning to cut off (we get sect, bisect, sectarian from this root). So basically, “our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we’re severed and cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect.” (p. 40) This understanding of sexuality may stretch our understanding of sex – but I think it’s worth considering as God has created us to be sexual creatures.
I loved chapter 3, entitled Angels and Animals. Rob basically gives two warnings: first, don’t just be an animal by succumbing to our urges/desires. Secondly, watch out for the overcompensation of much of Christianity – thinking that we must be sexless beings in order to be pure. Instead, we must channel our sexuality in healthy ways.
In chapter 5, Rob talks about love. I thought this quote was very provocative – “God can do anything – that’s what makes God, God. But God can’t do everything. God can’t make us love him – that’s our choice” (p. 109). As Ben Witherington explains it – love can neither be predetermined nor coerced. Else it cannot be love.
The BIG IDEA of why Bell used the framework of sex came down to this one idea – Ben Witherington says – that the oneness experienced in sex poits beyond itself to the oneness that exists in God.
I wish I could blog more specifically about his chapters on love, relationships and sexuality. So many more things to say about false loves, sexual expressions, and how to serve one another through these hard issues. Instead of spoiling it, I’ll just say that I recommend this book as a great primer for the biblical understanding of sexuality. It’s also a good ‘relationship book’.
Hi Yu,
Thanks for the review. However, from all other reviews that I have read, I personally cannot come to the same conclusion you have. I would agree that it is an easy place to start, for those who find more theology-heavy books on the same topic hard to understand.
Can you share any comments on the chapter titled, “Worth Dying For”? (I think it’s chapter 6) It was published on CT, so it is all that I have read from this book. I have previously written concerning this concept that there is some value within us that makes us worthy of somebody to die for us – feel free to join the conversation, though it’s a bit old.
In relation to ch.3, I wonder what ways unmarried singles can “channel” our sexuality in healthy ways. Maybe such issues would be good for a CC workshop in the future (albeit, better to have somebody professionally qualified to lead this one).
And that provocative quote from ch.5… is quite provocative indeed! I guess that’s why Bell is known as emergent.
Thanks for sharing.
Hi Alex,
thx for the comments. I understand the background of where you’re coming from – and therefore would find Bell too provocative, and therefore labelled as liberal (or worse). Although I don’t completely agree with everything Bell says (since when can one agree with ‘everything’ that anyone ever says?), I admire this book for bringing up the issue of ‘true sexuality’ in age saturated with casual sexuality.
For the chapter you’re referring to… unfortunately I lent my book away, so I don’t remember much. I do remember that I agreed with a small chunk of the chapter about mutual submission, and equality between men and women. I understand that this may be a different perspective that you may not share, but that’s why I believe God’s kingdom is bigger than the 2 perspectives (complementarian, egalitarian).
I think the the chapter title of ‘worth dying for’ came from his idea of being made in god’s image and being loved by God unconditionally. Therefore, our worth does not come from our body, minds, work, production, etc – our great worth comes from God. In this light, our worth comes especially through the lense of Christ dying for us.
oie… this comment is already getting too long. I’ll just say that I fully understand and respect the reform view for what it originally intended (to correct the works righteousness of the past). And I totally get what Driscoll is saying. But, in my context, I feel that our churches have emphasized this idea of total depravity too much. Perhaps to the point where it has become a type of bondage.
In any case, I think these are good discussions to have.
Hi Yu,
Thanks for replying. I see your perspective and am also trying to figure where the balance between the complementarian & egalitarian view is for myself personally. I’m hoping to find a better balance from not just reading Grudem, Piper, Kostenberger’s works… which tend to lean the compl way.
I think your paragraph about depravity & context sums it up. In my context, there seems to be a significant lack of it (very far from “too much”) and thus I guess my leaning towards emphasizing it my ministries. In either case, I hope people will know that we are not just trying to convict them of just sin, but more importantly, to convince them of grace.