In Defense of 'The Troll'

Urban Dictionary defines a troll as "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument".

The etymology of this internet slang term seems to be a combination of the noun and verb definitions for the actual word "troll". The verb to "troll" refers to a fishing method where you let the line out with bait on it, and pull it behind your boat; one prominent feature of the internet "troll" is that he baits groups of people into arguments, often disingenuously, by "trolling" a controversial statement behind his proverbial internet "boat" and seeing who bites. And of course the noun "troll" refers to an unintelligent, ugly mythical creature that dwells in caves and under bridges and who has a penchant for disturbing unsuspecting passersby, so the correlation there needs no explanation.

The slang term has utility when applied to those who do, in fact, disingenuously attempt to stir up controversy and raise people's ire just to amuse themselves, or for some other end. For some reason, Rob Bell just leapt into my mind. But, like any pejorative term, "troll" can often be used excessively or inappropriately as a way to demean and dismiss those who disagree with you without having to actually engage them.

Moreover, genuine statements of honestly held opinions can be made with some desire to be provocative -- but not for the sole purpose of being provocative -- and I see no reason to classify these actions as "trolling", even though they closely resemble each other.

If there is some prevalent sentiment that someone genuinely disagrees with and they want to make that known, what else do you expect them to do? Simply not speak their mind? Happily accept the label of troll? What have they done to deserve such a label? The conundrum is obvious; any unpopular sentiment voiced to an unsympathetic audience, even if not for the express purpose of attempting to get a rise out of people, is often indistinguishable from trolling, from the perspective of the unsympathetic audience. At least at first blush. Within a community of posters or commenters, given enough time, it becomes easier to recognize those who like to raise legitimate points of concern or disagreement from those who simply enjoy annoying people by being confrontational and disagreeable. Outside of consistent online communities of known members, though, what sometimes appears to be trolling can occasionally be simple, honest dissent from a widely held view.

So I suppose this isn't a defense of actual "trolls" -- it is just and righteous to scorn and shun their actions at every opportunity -- but of those who sometimes are incorrectly labeled trolls because their actions can appear identical to those of true trolls.

Worldly Wisdom

God's wisdom is not the wisdom of this world. It is a wisdom that is for this world, but not of it. The wisdom of the world is something else entirely. The Bible teaches this pretty clearly (1 Cor. 1:19-21, 1 Cor. 2:4-5, 1 Cor. 3:19, James 3:15, Colossians 2:8). What sometimes seems misunderstood by Christians is that warnings like these are lodged against the wisdom of the world. These verses, and others like them, don't warn of the danger of worldly foolishness, for example, but of actual wisdom. 

But isn't wisdom, in any form, a good thing? Isn't understanding something always better than not doing so? It's easy enough to understand that the ways of the world are sometimes -- if not always -- foolish. We know this from first hand experience. But when the world is wise, what harm is there in recognizing, or even adopting, that wisdom as our own? Shouldn't we be able to discern between the world's wisdom and its foolishness, and separate the wheat from the chaff? But if this were true, why warn against worldly wisdom at all? Why not simply call the ways of the world foolish and leave it at that? The fact that this isn't what Paul (primarily) does must have some significance. So what are some examples of 'worldly wisdom' and what are some of their potential dangers, viewing them from a Christian perspective?

•  Scientism / Evolutionism - There's nothing wrong with science or 'evolution' (properly defined), as both are studies of God's creation, and we know from scripture that it pleases him when he delight in his works. Problems arise when this natural and healthy wonderment at creation metastasizes and becomes an end unto itself. When the economy of immanent causation is idolized and elevated as a god of its own, or as the proper 'stopping point' when it comes to causation. Note that, from a wholly worldly perspective, this isn't stupid or wrong, it's completely wise. 
•  Political Thought - While it is important how we decide to organize and run our governments -- if and when we actually have a say, such as in a democracy -- these considerations are secondary to how we live as citizens in the Kingdom of Christ. Again, the potential for idolatry is great. Even the most venerable impulses in political organization, which aim to achieve justice and compassion for humanity, are often prioritized wrongly, or the state is elevated and viewed as final arbiter and authority. 
• History and the Bible - If history is conceived of as the unfolding of events at the hands of blind, material causes, rather than as the unfolding of the providential creation of a loving God, this results in two very different views of the world. This will dramatically affect your view of what history is, what the Bible is, and what Authority is. Working with the first view of history you can reach various reasonable conclusions, within that framework, that aren't wrong per se, but which are only wise within that system that necessarily excludes God, or at least deems God irrelevant.
• False and elevated view of Humanity - Worldly wisdom dictates that there is nothing inherently 'wrong' with humanity. Rather we simply what we are. Our nature, the things that we tend to do, whatever they are, are neither good or bad. Contrast this to the wisdom of the Bible which teaches that our initial state is fallen, broken and sinful. A neutral view of humanity at large, in its most fundamental state, is an overestimation of humanity in Biblical terms. Further, within a worldly framework, from this neutral starting point it is imagined that humans can will themselves, collectively, to do good and progress through their own efforts, apart from God, again in stark contradiction to Biblical claims. This utopian view of humanity can't be negotiated with from a Christian perspective, because it is in direct opposition to Biblical truth. 
•  False and degraded view of the Human Being - While worldly wisdom overvalues humanity as such, it undervalues actual, individual human beings. Within a worldly economy, it isn't unreasonable or unwise to consider unborn infants, the crippled and diseased, the comatose or the very elderly, less valuable than healthy adults. The intrinsic value of each individual certainly doesn't follow from worldly premises or the view of the cosmos as the mere machinations of chance acting upon energy and matter. The Christian vision of reality, in contrast, views every human life as having infinite worth. While it is true that many secular, worldly people would also affirm the inherent value of every individual, I would argue that this is a view that is merely a secularized version of Christianity. 

Much more could be said on each of these points, and other categories could be added I'm sure, but it should at least be quite obvious that the wisdom of the world can often conflict with the wisdom of Christ's Kingdom. 

If I'm right then this presents a rather large difficulty for liberal Christianity, which often allies itself with worldly wisdom. I'm not saying that all wisdom traditionally counted as 'worldly' necessarily is wholly -- or even primarily -- 'worldly'. Of course much of the wisdom of the modern world, where it exists, is the result of Christianity being co-opted and secularized, so I don't have any problem reclaiming that wisdom which is rightfully God's for God, so to speak. But some wisdom, like most of the examples I've given, is legitimately only wise within the economy of the secular and is ultimately unwise given the truth of the Christian claim. Yet liberal Christianity seems to make no such distinction, indeed it often wants to affirm wisdom of any sort as intrinsically valuable and rarely dangerous or troublesome. Or -- when they are self-aware enough to avoid affirming worldly wisdom as entirely legitimate -- they attempt to make concessions to, and compromise with, it, instead of rejecting it outright as they ought, which can be just as problematic. 

Rob Bell's recent book Love Wins created a firestorm in evangelical circles, mostly due to its universalism. And while I would also disagree with its universalist theology, a more fundamental problem with that book is just this brand of capitulating, concession-making and meeting-worldly-wisdom-half-way in areas where negotiation is not an option. 

For example, rejection of Christ is a sin, a sin more significant than any other, and Rob Bell makes excuses for people who reject Christ. Because of bad things Christians have done that give the Church a bad name, or because of the mood they were in when they were taught about Jesus, or because they don't really understand who Christ is or what he is about (even though the Gospel has been preached to them), these people can't be held accountable for their rejection of Christ. Or, to phrase it as Bell might, "these people can't be held accountable for their rejection of Christ, can they?" According to Biblical wisdom, yes, they can be. According to worldly wisdom, no, they can't be. Bell wants to bridge that gap, rather than simply reject worldly wisdom outright. 

This methodology isn't exclusive to Love Wins, of course, rather it colors the thinking and methods of a very wide swath of liberal Christianity, if not all of it, I'm just giving a recent famous example. 

So rather than affirm the worldly conception of history, morality or the value of the human, liberal Christians will often try to meet these views halfway, or attempt to explain the impulse that leads to such views, and apologize for them, rather than simply recognize them as sinful or false. 

So, what do liberal Christians make of various Biblical teachings that explicitly renounce worldly wisdom? Do they simply ignore them? Do they use their vaunted historical-critical methods of exegesis to downplay them, or otherwise explain them away? I'm not really sure. I imagine that many of the more well-known liberal Christians must have been challenged on this point at some time, (and if this is the case, please direct me to any of their writings on the matter) I just have never seen it done, and can't even imagine a coherent theoretical response to this criticism of their views. 

Love Wins. Justice Wins. God Wins. - A Review

One of the few positive things I have to say about Love Wins by Rob Bell is that it lives up to the hype. Bell's view-- especially on hell, God and the cross--really should be considered quite controversial in Christian circles. Considering that most of the hype started prior to the release of the book there was a decent chance that Bell wasn't saying anything too controversial, and instead he and his publishing company were just creating hype for the book's release. I thought that to be a distinct possibility, anyways. But it turns out he really is making some highly controversial claims, so in this sense the book does live up to the hype.

There are at least two ways one can go about writing a compelling, controversial Christian book. The first way would be to challenge some widely held traditional understandings on these matters by careful, thoughtful, exegesis of scripture, along with persuasive argumentation that the traditional view is in some sense incomplete, or perhaps even wrong. Then there's Rob Bell's way. Which mainly consists of posing challenges to traditional understandings of Scripture in a highly impressionistic, exegetically inept, and sometimes logically incoherent manner, while caricaturing and misrepresenting the traditional understanding of scripture.

While these are the central problems with the book--it's low view of scripture and tradition, its speculation in place of exegesis, its logical weaknesses--I think many others have covered these in greater detail than I could ever hope to, so I will continue the review by focusing on aspects that are also problematic but which I don't think have been covered as thoroughly--though I will briefly touch on the main problems as well.

In addition to the problems mentioned above, Bell's motivation also seems to be a problem. His motivation in writing often seems to be to make excuses for the sinful rejection of God.

[That Jesus is divine, eternal and created all things] is an astouding claim, and one that causes many to get off the bus at the nearest stop. Too out there, too mythic, premodern or superstitious to be taken seriously in our modern world. Haven't we evolved past such nonsense. God became man?

It's a common protest and it's understandable.

However unpalatable it is for modern sensibilities, it is true. We shouldn't, we aren't even allowed to, make concessions or accommodations on this point. It's an 'understandable' protest? Not really. It's foolish and evidence of a hardened heart or hardened mind that needs to be lovingly disabused of its false conception of what constitutes truth.

I've written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn and their heart to utter those resolute words "I would never be a part of that."

Let's for a moment put aside the fact that people's own sinful nature can cause them to react this way to the true Gospel, not a false Gospel. His argument seems to be that because people have different conceptions of God, because people bring baggage to the idea of God, because people sometimes have a 'false God' preached about in church, that therefore we can't be held accountable for our rejection of 'God'. Bell treats all of these as legitimate excuses--not to reject the false gods and false Christs-- but to reject Christ himself. Some baggage is apparently insurmountable in this life, and so these people are politely exempted from responsibility or accountability for their actions and beliefs. Seems reasonable and Biblical enough, right?

There are such things as false gods and false prophets. The Bible says that there are and it seems Bell acknowledges as much when it comes to Christians who preach false doctrines, or Christians who paint a false image of God by not behaving in a Christ-like matter. It seems that wayward Christians definitely have the potential to portray God in a false way, or to be false prophets. True enough, Bell definitely has that right. To hear Bell tell it, however, at least in other parts of the book, there are only differing ways that God reveals himself to humanity--not false ways. While most Christians would affirm the notion that God can reveal himself in many other ways in addition to Scripture, Bell seems to think that this means that any response by humans to any god in any manner are actually instances of humans responding to the true (but hidden) God in a proper manner. Which is a massive non sequitur. Just because God can and does reveal himself in many ways, does not mean that all human conceptions or responses to his revelation are good and right responses. Sometimes the responses will be improper and sinful. Sometimes the 'revelation' itself will be a false god or false prophet. And no, this doesn't require my personal view of what is and is not a good and proper response to be true, it only means that right and wrong responses--as well as true and false 'revelations'-- do exist.

Bell makes a point to celebrate seeming paradoxes about the nature of God a couple times in this book, rather than treat them as problems that need a solution. Fair enough. Yet Bell treats the notion of God being just and gracious as untenable. He thinks God's wrath and God's love are incompatible. He thinks that Jesus can't save us from God's wrath, because Jesus is God. The merry postmodernist, who celebrates God's mystery and paradoxical nature, can't reconcile these aspects of God? They are logically incompatible? Really? Not to mention that, with respect to God's mercy and wrath, one doesn't even need to shrug it off as a mystery or a paradox. God is merciful and wrathful, loving and just. There is no contradiction here.

The most controversial aspect of the book is probably Bell's conception of hell, and what it reveals about God's character. I think the lack of a scriptural basis for his views has been well documented, so in order to keep this review shorter I will defer to others on this matter, except to highlight one thing. The only book Bell cites for 'further reading' on the topic of hell is C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. Which is a work of fiction and speculation as to how heaven-hell could possibly operate, not how they do, certainly, Biblically operate. The reason the book is widely appreciated by Christians is because it is a work of fiction and acknowledges that it is speculating about the machinations of the afterlife. If Bell were to correctly pronounce his own views on hell to primarily be speculation--or better yet, fiction--I don't think they would cause as much consternation as they have. But even as speculation Bell's views would still be problematic because they seem to contradict scripture directly.

In addition to all these problems, as well as the more central ones addressed by others, I think the book also has a problem of tone. Bell's tone, if not his actual argument itself, often comes off as placating non-believers by suggesting that Christianity is something entirely different from what they've been lead to believe and that's why they reject it. While that might be true for some people, or it might be true in some small sense for a lot of people, many other people reject Christianity for what it truly is. Disabusing people of false conceptions is all well and good, but Bell aims to do that by caricaturing and misrepresenting more traditional understandings of the faith. His methodology seems to be: 1) consider what keeps people from coming to the faith (a good thing to do), 2) re-evaluate that aspect of the faith (also very good), 3) if it's some misconception that does need corrected in his view, attempt to address it (still fine and good), and lastly 4) if the stumbling block is something that is an intractable, non-negotiable aspect of Christianity, downplay it, redefine what it means or pretend like it doesn't exist (a very bad thing to do). As Christians we should go as far as we can to attempt to bring the Gospel to the lost--but not so far that the Gospel ceases to be the Gospel.