The Institute (協会)

It sounds pretty accurate... All of us worship something, whether it be God or an idol. So in a sense, our "spirituality" can't be separated from our "secular" self. That distinction has evolved from a Western platonic duality.

Brad,

Is there a specific place in Plato you are thinking of?

Perhaps no specific word for spiritual, but certainly Hebrew allows for "-ruach" using the possessive case to denote things of the spirit, denoting and connoting just about exactly the same thing.

Not that Bell is wrong in his claim that there really isn't a huge chasm between sacred and secular; I just don't think that the claim from the Hebrew proves it. Perhaps a better linguistic example is that the old Latin "saecula" from whence "secular" derives refers not to the world, but rather to a "generation" or "age," and the old use of "secular" refers more or less to a church worker whose ministry is not in a monastery or convent, but rather among the laity.

I have 2 comments about the above semantic observation.

1) It's one thing to say, as Bell does, that we are spiritual beings and that all of our life is in some sense "spiritual." But one must also be careful to make that distinction while still doing justice to passages like Romans 7:14, where Paul says the law is spiritual, but he is of the flesh. Precision in stating the correct doctrine accurately is less fun than being flamboyantly imprecise, but it's more productive in the long run.

2) "There is no Hebrew word for 'spiritual.'" That's just an exegetical fallacy - Hebrews could just as well use some set of words to describe the same thing, instead of just one. I don't know Hebrew, but I know enough to spot that it is a fallacious argument unless supplemented with more facts. If Robert Perry above is right about the -ruach ending, then Bell's caught red-handed.

"Ruach" is simply the Hebrew word for "wind" or "spirit," analogous to (if I remember correctly) the Greek "pneuma." Etamology can be tremendous fun, but it's perilous at times, too.

please don't bash Robert Bell for his understanding of the Hebrew language (especially if you yourself don't know Hebrew). His command of Hebrew may be farther reaching than yours. I think what is important for the discussion is to recognize that Rob is simply going against the trend in evangelical circles to compartmentalize faith/spirituality. Most evangelicals (especially reformed evangelicals up in grand Rapids Michigan) have dispensationalist backgrounds and create a false dichotomy between the spiritual and material. You won't see a dispensationalist at a justice conference. They are only concerned about the spiritual, the heavenly, their raptured souls.

God breathed "nephesh" into Adam and Eve. The term "nephesh" is probably what Rob Bell is referring to in his talk. Nephesh literally means breathe, so that Adam became a living creature, not simply material, not simply spiritual, but a real living creature. That's why in his talk he made a distinction between being a spiritual being vs. seeing through your eyes and being aware of it. Rob, along with many other emergent leaders, is correcting a disembodied theology, and much of what we call spiritual wrt to our faith has nothing to do with the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy and faithfulness.

God cares what we do with our bodies, he created the body, he redeemed the body, he resides in our bodies, and someday he will resurrect the body. There should be no room in our theology to simply push our faith into the cultural corner of pertaining to the spiritual.

thanks berkeleyrican, you're headed in the right direction. Thanks for actually watching the video. Rob's point is not the semantic range of the hebrew word but to make the point that the Old Testament does not use the word "spiritual" conceptually like American Christians do.

again, berkeleyrican, thanks for helping us focus on Rob's actual point.

berkeleyrican, I'm having a hard time visualizing "reformed evengelicals with dispensational backgrounds, especially in Grand Rapids, Michigan". Reformed and dispensational are like oil and water I do believe.

Paul, he's actually right. Paul there are MANY pockets of Reformed churches who are extremely dispensational in practice (although they confess to be Reformed) and they are even in "Reformed" denominations. I won't name them here but please remember that one of the leading dispensational seminaries in America was started by Presbyterians who confessed the Westminster Confession of Faith.

berkeleyrican, thanks again for the important historical reality that many are unaware of.

Anthony, I did watch the video before my previous post, and I am well aware what his point was. (I'm frankly puzzled by your implication that I didn't, because that sounds to me like an ad hominem argument.) Bell's argument, however, is imprecise enough to suggest to me the critiques I made earlier.

In any case, berkeleyrican and Anthony, my point still stands. Whether or not Hebrew has a word for "spirit" is not the end of the inquiry on whether there is a distinction. I am not bashing Rob Bell's understanding of Hebrew, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of his argument (which one need not know Hebrew to notice) (and no teacher is ever immune from making exegetical mistakes).

For what it's worth, I agree with the bulk of his conclusion. However, I'm also unwilling to assume the validity of his argument on the basis of his authority as a translator or exegete. He has to provide both sufficient facts and argument to connect his premise (no word in Hebrew for "spirit") with his conclusion (no distinction between spiritual and physical/secular/whatever). Maybe he does this sufficiently elsewhere, but he doesn't give enough in this video clip to let me accept his whole argument as it stands.

Paul often speaks as if there is some sort of distinction between spirit and flesh, and it is necessary therefore to figure out how that fits with Bell's point. This observation does not justify Platonic philosophy at all - it merely insists that we understand the WHOLE counsel of God in its context. I think, for example, of Paul's statement in Romans 15:27: "For they were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their *spiritual* blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in *material* blessings." (emphasis added)

It's just not as easy as saying, as Bell does, that the distinction between spiritual and nonspiritual is "absolutely foreign to the world of the Scriptures." A search through the New Testament quickly disproves that statement. All I'm saying is that Bell hasn't made the argument sufficiently. Again, perhaps he has elsewhere, but not in this clip.

tuscOn said, "Anthony, I did watch the video before my previous post, and I am well aware what his point was. (I'm frankly puzzled by your implication that I didn't, because that sounds to me like an ad hominem argument.)"

Since you're not mentioned by name, isn't possible that those comments were directed at you since other people are reading the thread and posting comments?

Berkeleyrican, it's not a contest over who knows more Hebrew. It's a discussion over a simple point, and whether it can be made using a simple discussion of the language. As any spiritualist now living in Israel could tell you, Hebrew is certainly flexible enough to accomodate the concept.

So in this case, Bell is simply wrong about the Hebrew. He's certainly not the first, and certainly won't be the last, person to make a mistake with the Biblical languages. I remember receiving a book about Biblical manhood that I really liked, and then my Hebrew instructor told me to get out my BDB and check the author's etamology.

50,000 men had gotten a copy of a book the previous week. Ouch. The author had misdefined half the words he used.

It's a big problem, and if we would like to understand the nuances that define Reformed, covenant, and dispensational theology, maybe we need to break out our BDB as well.

Anthony, there were only two of us (myself and Robert Perry) who asserted positions adverse to berkeleyrican's and Bell's. When you commented in response to berkeleyrican, you said two things (in relevant part, emphasis mine):

"Thanks for *actually* watching the video...again, berkeleyrican, thanks for helping us focus on Rob's *actual* point."

Now, it is entirely possible that you were referring to the slightly off-topic comments by Brad and Dave. But you re-focused attention away from Bell's argument and onto his conclusion, which gives rise to a perfectly reasonable inference that you were countering previous comments that criticized Bell's premises and/or argument. It would be entirely out of place for you, as a reasonable man, to try to refocus people off the semantics of his premises if they had not talked about his semantic premises. This leads me to believe, with no plausible alternative, that you were directing the "actually" business at either myself or Robert Perry.

So there are two of us who are plausible candidates for comment target(s). We both made parallel arguments, and mine seem to be, in retrospect, largely redundant.

That's why I think it's odd to ask ME whether it's possible that the comment was directed at another. Of course it's possible - it could be directed at just Mr. Perry. But was it directed at me? Only you know. And you aren't telling.

Historically, when systematic theologians study anthropology, they tend to see Scripture teaching a bipartite (body, spirit) or tripartite (body, spirit and soul)view of the human person. I am do not hold that the we can speak of a body and spirit wrt to the human person.

But our understanding of the human person, and the distinctions we make between body and spirit should be analogous to our understanding of atoms (byt atom in greek means indivisible). We know an atom contains electrons, protons and neutrons. And when we smash atoms in particle accelerators we find that protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. I once had a friend in DC who was a scientist and he was very interested in atomic modeling, because he told me that you really don't understand an atom by smashing it up. I think we do a similar thing when we try to break up the human person into parts like body and spirit. The Death is the great human smasher, and it smashes humanity in body and spirit (if you are a tripartite add soul to this discussion). When death comes upon a person, you don't have a human person anymore, it radically destroys God's creation. What we have is Jose accelerated at the speed of light being smashed against a wall. The picture isn't pretty, and to try to study what a human person is from that picture would be a mistake.

The point is simply i agree that we can read scripture and find spirit and find body, but that's because of the fall, we aren't pre-existed spirits (that would be platonic).

Rob Bell's tour is the "Everything is Spiritual", and his talk mentioned that there is no word for "spirit", I can see how some people can be confused by his use of spirit. However, let's be gracious to him, and ask Anthony to write him and ask him to clarify his point next time he addresses the topic.

tusc0n raider let it go brother.

"[Dispensationalists] are only concerned about the spiritual, the heavenly, their raptured souls."
That's quite a generalization. While that is true among some groups, it isn't because they're Dispensationlists, it's because they are ignorant of what being salt and light, and being in the world while not of it, actually means. And that isn't true across the board. There are many Dispensationlists who recognize their responsibility to impact culture.

I think Bell is making a very necessary and fantastic point. Humans are created as spiritual beings. It is why humans seek something to worship, something to comfort. Since we as believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, then all of our lives are to be lived to God's glory. There is no separation. Everything we do is in the Spirit, and we ought to be mindful of that. That, perhaps, is a more salient point than the semantic one.

TusOn said, "That's why I think it's odd to ask ME whether it's possible that the comment was directed at another. Of course it's possible - it could be directed at just Mr. Perry. But was it directed at me? Only you know. And you aren't telling."

I'm not sure why you can't move on but if I was pinpointing you exclusively I would have quoted you directed and responded accordingly, like I normally do. I can't speak for Robert but it may explain why he didn't assume it was directed at him and reacted differently. Sometimes general comments are made for future thread readers as well.

berkeleyrican said, "Rob Bell's tour is the "Everything is Spiritual"".

Yeah, he explains what he means more fully during the rest of his lecture. This was just a commercial. I think it's intended to stir stuff up and it succeeds at that.

I both watched the video and saw his presentation in the flesh when it came to Philly a year ago. I think his big picture point is great: everything IS spiritual and that is important for people in our culture, both secular and "churched" alike to meditate on. My frustration was that after he ended his talk with the words "EEEEverything is Spiritual," he bowed and walked off the stage. Yes, he mentioned Jesus, but not as the one and only savior of mankind. If I were a non-believer his talk would have inspired curriosity within me (and that may have been Bell's principle intention), but it would have left me without the knowlege to do anything with my spirituality. Might as well go home and light candles and think about my union of flesh and spirit, and hope I don't accidentally burn down my house with my spirituality. I love Rob Bell and what he is doing and what he stands for. However, I'd love a one sentence mission statement for this tour. If all the wanted to do was to get some folks thinking of things our culture f's up, then great, I think he did an awesome job. It could us a really good sequel though.

Hey folks, I read Proverbs 16 this morning, and I feel like I owe everyone an apology. Proverbs 16:27: "A worthless man plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire." Spreading strife was not what I am supposed to do as a follower of Christ, so I am sorry for latching onto the didn't-watch-the-video suggestion as if my own honor were worth fighting about. I am going to try to be more discerning in the future.

Sorry, not related to Rob Bell at all, but:
tusc0n raider - I applaud you for your humility and willingness to apologize. Gentleness is an unfortunately rare trait among many bloggers, even Christians (especially Christians?), and I wanted to encourage you in your discernment and willingness to accept rebuke. Thanks, brother -

tuscOn, no worries. It's how guys communicate often. At least you've got some "fire-in-the-belly." Fighting is good.

I saw the video and I have to say that I agree. Now, I have absolutely no theological training academically speaking, but I do agree when he says that we act as integrated beings, not as separate physical, emotional and spiritual, but as one being that is made up of these 3 sides that are inseparable and interdependent.

Uhm... Sorry, I was just like bothered by Rob's glasses and sideburns.