- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/22)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/23)
The New Evangelical Virtues
- 03/22/11
- 57
I don’t want to keep talking about Rob Bell. Honest. And in this post I am only going to touch on him on the way to something else. I think the uproar about his view on hell has helpfully illustrated what passes as virtue in the evangelical world today. As I have read some of the controversy, reading particularly from those who have taken his side, I have seen evidence of three characteristics that seem to pass as virtues today. In some parts of the Christian world, these are now embraced as Christian virtue: doubt, opaqueness, and an emphasis on asking rather than answering questions.
Doubt
Doubt has become a virtue while boldness and assuredness have become marks of arrogance. The only thing we should be sure of is that we cannot be sure of much of anything. Doubt has become synonymous with humility. And so it was with the people who used to be known by that term emerging. This was a faith devoid of boldness, a faith that emphasized the unknowability of God at the expense of what we can know with confidence. The man who went on television and declared how little he knew in a quiet tone of voice was lauded over the man who spoke confidently of what God has made clear.
But here’s the thing: the Bible tells us that we can believe boldly, knowing what we know, believing and proclaiming what God says is true. Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus gives boldness to His people. It is not a rash and arrogant boldness that takes refuge in our own intellectual capacities, but a boldness that what God reveals of himself through Scripture is real and right and true and knowable. It is a confidence that we, simple human beings, can know and understand God. And what we know and understand we can proclaim. Humility is not found in doubting what is true, but in believing that what God says is true is true indeed. And it is found in proclaiming it on that basis. Humility is expressed in obedience.
Opaqueness
Another new virtue is opaqueness, of speaking in ways that are deliberately vague and unclear. By hiding behind language like “we need to avoid those old paradigms” everything that has been settled is re-opened, everything is open for redefinition. Categories are avoided, even when such categories have proven helpful and long-standing. Speaking very clearly and frankly about what has gone wrong in the past is more than acceptable, but the way forward must be vague and obscure. Here is what Greg Boyd says about Rob Bell and his new book: “[G]iven Rob's poetic/artistic/non-dogmatic style, Love Wins cannot be easily filed into pre-established theological categories (viz. ‘universalism’ vs ‘eternal conscious suffering’ vs. ‘annihilationism,’ etc.).” That is meant as praise. But it could just as easily be critique.
There are many people who have read an entire book by a man like Brian McLaren and have come away with a very strong sense of what he does not believe in, but almost no sense of what he does believe, as if this is virtuous.
Opaqueness is not a virtue. Stirring people’s emotions and leading them to doubt without providing reassurance is cruel rather than kind. We are to speak clearly of what God has said and done. Where God has been clear we have the ability to be clear and, therefore, we have the responsibility.
Questions Are In, Answers Are Out
Asking questions is in, answering them in a clear and compelling way is out. Here is how Greg Boyd praises Bell in this regard: “Rob is first and foremost a poet/artist/dramatist who has a fantastic gift for communicating in ways that inspire creativity and provoke thought. Rob is far more comfortable (and far better at) questioning established beliefs and creatively hinting at possible answers than he is at constructing a logically rigorous case defending a definitive conclusion.” As just one example, the strength of the Emerging Church and its draw was far more in asking questions than in answering them. In fact, the New Calvinism and the Emerging Church arose by asking many of the same questions—questions that came out of the Church Growth Movement and the slow erosion of significant, weighty doctrine. Right teaching and right living were being replaced by mindless entertainment and those who became Emergent leaders asked many good questions. But their answers, when they were willing to give them, were lousy.
One might say that asking questions without the ability or willingness to answer them is dangerous, misleading, even irresponsible. Jesus loved to ask tough questions, undermining false faith. But he would always return with truth to shore up the cracked foundations. Many leaders today feel little need to do this. They are content to undermine, to cause doubt, without responding with clear truth. There is no virtue in this.
There are many lessons we can and will continue to draw from all the furor surrounding Love Wins. But these are three small lessons I don’t want to lose along the way.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (57)
I think this is more about personality than ‘rightness’. I get frustrated with Bell and his obtuseness as much as anyone. But he is trying to teach in a way that helps people find their own way. I think the other side has equal problems. When we teach in way that says only one way is possible and all other discussion is out of bounds, that is equally unhelpful.
Teaching (discipling) needs to be about more than asking people to just accept orthodoxy because we (and historic Christianity) says it is so. Our culture just does not have that acceptance of authority. And if we are reaching people, then we are discipling those that did not grow up in historic Christianity.
At the same time we do need to show that there are boundaries of orthodoxy, where the boundaries are and why the boundaries are in place.
Have mercy! We must teach in a way that DOES point to the one way! There IS only one way. Do not (for the “sake” of argument or dialog) push truth (the inspired, holy scriptures) out of the way just to spark a debate. Christ did not debate. He gave the truth, which always testified to himself. The Word of God does not need to bring authority to itself. The Holy Spirit will make it plain and God will open eyes as he wills. That is the gloriousness of the true Word of God.
It is alright to raise questions to invoke discussion but the word of God is clear enough a 10 year old can read the gospels and come away with a basic understanding of the Gospel.
Bell casts doubt and shadow , a Pastor is called to be clear, sound of speech and doctrine . The only one in the Bible described as speaking deception and misleading is the serpent of old , the father of lies Satan. Bell is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He needs to be called to repentance . His teaching has infected my home Church and I will not be as polite as many have been in exposing this heretic within our congregation.
I will not be pugnacious or without love and grace , but this is damnable teaching and needs to be outed . He is teaching another gospel and if people cannot see it , then perhaps they need to be awakened themselves. This is old fashion liberalism , clothed in a hip latte drink , that’s all .
Ah Pamela, there in lies the problem, that is your interpretation of the Bible (Sarc.).I agree with you and am saddened by the lack of trust people have in stating God things boldly. Yes we should anwser the questioner with respect. Their inability to understand the obvious is because they are selfish babies who have not grown because they do not want to grow because it is “kewl” to be a questioner etc… Bell, Maclaren, et, al are what the proverbs call “fools” and what they are trying to feed us is drivel from an unregenerant heart, they just ain’t Christian…
Chesterton said something to the effect that Man used to be sure of the truth and not so sure of himself, the modern man is exactly the opposite. Sadly the deconstruction ideals of the post modern thinkers have seeped into our “modern christian” thought process. We denounce the dead and their works as in the past and irrelevant. We are far more wise than our fathers were…. Fortunately in this vacuum of doubt and vagueness truth only becomes more like oxygen to any one in our culture suffocating from the void of absolutes. Doubt will never be satisfied until it finds substance. Unfortunately that’s the very thing being withheld by those asking the questions.
Tim:
You hit the nail on the head. Thankfully you’re not the only one saying these things.
Michael
Adam,
I have a serious question, so please don’t think that I am attacking you, but you said:
“When we teach in way that says only one way is possible and all other discussion is out of bounds, that is equally unhelpful.”
Would you say the same thing about your child’s math teacher? Would you rather your child’s math teacher teach so that your child would find her own way - even if that way is wrong?
I asked a similar question during a sermon I gave recently. I asked “Would we take our car to a mechanic who didn’t know the difference between a distributor cap and a spark plug? Of course not. Then why do we take our children to Christian educators who don’t know the difference between justification and sanctification?”
It’s almost as if the math teacher or mechanic are more real to us than God. Ultimately, we disciple people so that they submit to the ultimate authority. If we take your statement…
“Our culture just does not have that acceptance of authority.”
…which is true by the way, and cast that on our discipleship model, and disciple in a way that doesn’t teach them to submit to authority but instead encourages them to forge their own path, we will never make disciples. We will make people who forge their own way right down the wide path and straight to their doom.
And you touched on it when you said:
“At the same time we do need to show that there are boundaries of orthodoxy, where the boundaries are and why the boundaries are in place. ”
And maybe that’s the rub. When in discipleship do we introduce these boundaries? I’d prefer the beginning - that way, we are forcing the people we talk to to count the cost of discipleship and there will be no bait and switch. But whenever we introduce these boundaries, by definition, we are setting up an authority.
And as you so rightly said - people reject authorities.
Thanks for listening,Jeff.
Thank you for writing exactly what has been on my mind. I see “love” (and the “nobility” of doubt and questions) being lifted so high - that anyone who tries to refer to the truth of God’s word as the answer is already condemned for arrogance - ugh! It’s been a frustrating conversation to watch.
Thank you for this post and your willingness to explain this truth,Courtney
Naming these new virtues “virtues” perfectly expresses what I have been trying to communicate about doubt (specifically) for some time now.
Thanks.
While Jesus used questions to teach, he never did it suggesting there was a multitude of equally valid answers.
Great post Tim.
Amen Pamela!
Intentionally casting doubt seems to me to reverse the more biblical direction of plumbing the deep truths of Scripture that enrich the soul and enhance our assurance of the nature and character of God.
As we progress forward in this healthier way of living and thinking our way through the Christian life, we are inevitably faced with questions - but these questions force us to push further forward with the confidence that God will speak to most of them in His word (allowing for those things He chooses not to reveal to us), rather than to backtrack and to lead an entire congregation to celebrate their uncertainty over all things.
I just attended a conference, right here in Rob Bell’s own backyard, with some of the best scholars and most committed believers of our time. Stuffed shirts? Ivory-tower pontificators? Hardly! Through their thoughtful, well-researched, and passionate preaching, I left strengthened in my own convictions and desiring to dive deeper into God’s Word, and to confidently impress these truths on my kids. God bless those men.
That is an awfully broad brush you’re using there. Saying “Emergent” as though it is a single entity is as valid as lumping orthodox Southern Baptist churches in with the snake handlers and Westboro because they all have “Baptist” in their names.
While I have never been a part of any type of emergent church, I recognize that there are theologically orthodox churches who style themselves in that way.
“But here’s the thing: the Bible tells us that we can believe boldly, knowing what we know, believing and proclaiming what God says is true.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Well said, Tim. I’m gonna use a quote about “doubt” for my FB status. The 1st couple of sentences really speak to a conversation I was having last week w/ an agnostic guy. He said that he could not respect my faith or my stance on the Scriptures/belief in the Supernatural b/c I spoke w/ an assurance about things. Your words perfectly convey the point I was trying to get across.
God Bless, Bo
Excellent post Tim. I wrote on a similar topic this morning. Much of today’s popular Christianity is very empty. It’s all questions, no answers. All heart, no head. Relativism is in, objective truth is out.
Thanks for sharing.
Right on. Really reminds me of this video of Taylor Mali. Nobody says it like he does. Check this out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4
Thanks Tim!! this is great…
I know we’re all weary of the bad reads going on so I hesitate to add this from Donald Miller. It just adds to the ‘conversation’ on vague, undefined free form approach to interpreting scripture. what he means by this is…??
http://donmilleris.com/2011/03/21/how-not-to-read-the-bible/
Sometimes the “small lessons” as you call them, can keep our feet from wandering away from the only Way to God. I don’t want to miss any “small lesson”.
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
@Pamela #2: “There IS only one way.”
Yes, there is. In terms of the simple Gospel.
But, there are multiple valid *opinions* on a host of other issues. Not every issue is a closed-handed issue, although some would like to make it so.
Let’s think about a few of those:
-mode of baptism-timing of baptism-origins-eschatology-nature of the atonement (substitutionary/ransom/etc.)-church governance-“worship” styles-church involvement with civic government-Etc.
Often we spend more time fighting among ourselves about things like that - some of which, frankly, may have more than one right answer - than we do with spreading the Gospel in our words and deeds.
The recent Rob Bell brouhaha is a prime example. Lots of yelling that, really, only served to sell more books. When one looks honestly at history, a diversity of views on heaven and hell (including the one Bell put forth) have always existed within the larger Church.
But, who did the fighting about it this time (and previously, I assume)? We did. Not the World. They really don’t care.
And how much time did we waste? And what did we look like to the rest of the world? And, did your average boots-on-the-ground missionary spreading the Word and (for instance) digging clean water wells in Africa benefit from our internecine fights?
I couldn’t agree more, Tim. Very fine post with clear, precise thinking. Thank you!
Thank you Tim, this is the first time I have heard these points brought up. Also, Jeff, I really appreciated your analogy about the math teacher and mechanic.On a side note, my family was driving to church on Sunday and saw a man walking along the road (headed in the direction of our church). He got in and we started talking, turns out it was Fran Sciacca! He is a member of our church but of course always busy. I knew of him because of links you’ve posted on your blog. Thanks!
Amen!
The greatest clarity I’ve ever had with the Gospel has always been when I’ve listened through the heart of simplicity. Great preachers teach the complexities of Scripture so that even the heart of a little child understands and is transformed. From my perspective, Rob Bell’s book makes the doctrine of Hell, or his proposed concept of Hell, confusing, muddled and biblically false.
are you serious?. Jesus. Cross. death.burial. resurrection.righteous living. fruits of the Spirit.
people need to stop with this nonsense. there of course is a place for questions etc…since people who are not saved have questions, we need to be ready to answer. if we don’t have an answer, then we delve into scripture and encourage them to do the same. ther is ONLY one way as far as salvation goes..and anything else hinges on that fact. we need to stop with the pansy answers that those “withing” the faith are giving to people to please their fears and insecurities. driscoll can get on my nerves sometimes, but we need some testosterone back in the church/pulpit.
I think the problem is that people confuse meekness with doubt, opaqueness and questioning. The modern concept of meekness as being somehow passive, subservient or nonoffensive has replaced Biblical meekness as manifested in Moses and Jesus Christ.
E.G.
“And how much time did we waste? And what did we look like to the rest of the world? And, did your average boots-on-the-ground missionary spreading the Word and (for instance) digging clean water wells in Africa benefit from our internecine fights?”
Debate on the truth of the Bible is not a waste of time. Determining the truth found in scripture is central to having a faith of any integrity. Without a solid ground of unwavering truth, what point is there in placing belief in christianity? Debates over central areas of faith have been absolutely critical to the solidifcation of doctrine.
The Jerusalem council in Acts settled the application of the mosaic law to gentiles.
The first council of Nicea resulted in the rejection of Arius’s heretical view that Christ was not the same as the Father.
The council of Chalcedon affirmed Jesus as fully man and fully human.
These are not small matters of debate among christian brothers and sisters. They are foundational to the faith, ensuring robust debate occurs and they provided consensus on what is truth, and what is not.
Today, we don’t convene councils to decide truth. We send emails, post blogs, write books. Debate then occurs once the intial opinion/argument has been stated. It is no less important today to strongly refute any false gospel, heresy, lie, whatever you feel comfortable calling it. How can we preach the word that has been given to us if we aren’t sure of core doctrine?
So to you answer your question re: the mission in Africa: yes the missionary benefits from having doctrine and truth rigorously debated and passed down. The missionary can then pass this truth on to those he serves instead of saying…. “well I don’t know, we used to know what happened to the unrepentant sinner but then someone said they didn’t believe in Hell and no one said anything.. soo.. maybe he’s right.” No. Truth is important in every aspect of life, none more so than our view of God and His word.
Tim,
Another equally frustrating “virtue” among many younger evangelicals—emergent or otherwise—is to their penchant for communicating these things as if they’re thinking about them for the first time, as if they’ve just begun to think critically about such matters, and as if the ideas they’re conveying are even remotely new.
If I may be critical as well of so-called new Calvinists for a second: many seem to be absolutely certain about a great many things, far more than is appropriate (given the breadth of christendom), it seems to me.
An old professor once spoke of a “cone of certainty,” an inverted cone with those bits of dogma that are worthy of certitude funneled down to the tip, while various other doctrines fell somewhere in between the tip and the wide opening at the top. Everybody’s is going to look different, of course, but they should look more alike than not (I’m thinking of Lewis and Mere Christianity here).
I think his opaqueness is just his postmodernism.
“This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
“…always learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)
Jeff (@7). I think we can have clarity when we speak of a few issues. The problem is when people want to assert the same clarity over a large number of issues. EG (20) I think summarizes the problem well. Large areas of Africa, Asia and the rest of the developing world were divided up by denominations similar to the way the secular government of Europe divided the world as colonies. Then those denominational missionaries taught their versions of their understanding of baptism, eucharist, gifts of the holy spirit, etc. Then those missionaries and their converts spent time arguing over the results.
I am all for presenting the major tenants of christianity as having clear boundries. But if we present the minor issues as having clear boundaries and ignore the diversity within the church that currently exists and has existed in history we place our own understanding over the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ that is the head of the church.
Christ has preserved his church. That does not mean that we should not teach boundaries or truth, but it does mean we should teach with humble understanding that we may not properly understand all that God knows and understands.
Chuck,
Just because Bell responds that DeYoung’s interpretation isn’t accurate doesn’t mean it is. Challies and DeYoung posted thorough reviews, and if they were inaccurate in their quotes, or even misleading…then show where. If not, then the only way that they are wrong about what Bell believes is if Bell doesn’t believe his own book.
“Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” - Chesterton
Chuck, not only is Bell’s view not Reformed, it’s not biblical.
Michael,What is Bell’s view as you understand it?
I found the following article helpful
http://www.civitate.org/2009/01/the-new-evangelical-scandal/
This seems right. Many evangelical commentators assume that postmodernism teaches that every text has a potentially infinite number of valid readings. This simply isn’t the case. (Ziauddin Sardar springs to mind here).The postmodernist argues that there is never one priveleged reading of a text that should be preferred to others.So, on the standard account of Inference to the Best Explanation, the theorist generates several competing theories, and chooses the best. The postmodernist will generate several competing theories, and refuse to choose from among them.( However “less oppressive” readings, inconsistently, may be preferred.)I doubt that Bell is trying to be postmodern - although I don’t know much about him. But I’ve picked up on these themes in Emergentism. To see what it looks like when applied consistently, visit Peter Rollins blog, and look up (a) Pyro-theology and (b) atheism.
Graham Veale
Okay, I’m trying to figure out how this blog works. That was meant to be a reply to Ricky Williams. Who reckons that the opaqueness is just Bell’s postmodernism. And I agree. I thought it would pop up under Ricky’s question. It seems pretentious out of context.
(It seemed pretentious in context, but fewer people would have noticed).
Graham
As it happens, I don’t think Bell has a position, given his “clarifications”
http://www.patheos.com/community/loveandjudgment/2011/03/17/a-defense-of…
Universalism might be true. It might not be true. Bell doesn’t know.Which begs the question “Why did you write a book about it?”. But, like Tim says, not having answers seems more authentic nowadays. It seems like leadership to some people. I really would recommend Matthew Lee Anderson’s article “The New Evangelical Scandal”, which I linked to above. I don’t know much about Anderson, but he develops many of the points that Tim makes and explains these trends by putting them in a social context.
Graham Veale
What is sad is that people are being mislead and they will be going to that same hell that Rob Bell claims doesn’t exist. It is sickening.
All,
If doubt and questions are merely a symptom of deconstruction and postmodernity, certainty is merely a symptom of the structuralism found in a Kantian modernity, while the contemporary evangelical position on the afterlife is read through a neo-platonic dualism filtered through the progeny of Calvin and Luther.
To say that neo-Calvinists hold an Orthodox view of the Bible is almost as absurd as staking a claim to Orthodoxy itself. Would you really claim that John MacArthur’s church is more Orthodox than say the Orthodox Ethiopian Christian which has survived for nearly 2,000 years and is also certain about what the Bible says on hell [maintaining a different position and certainty than your own]?
As Ecclesiastes says “nothing is new under the sun.” These arguments on the afterlife are as ancient as the Bible itself. So my question is how do we move past the divide? With so many family and friends in both camps, how do we honor each other-the person in our midst? Do we read our own separate faith blogs that serve our separate ideologies and certainties? Do we talk about how the other is wrong while in the presence of our like minded friends and family?
I would love to see a high profile religious leader/ blogger take the time to actually dialog with those Christians who don’t share his certainties.
Please, do continue to talk about Rob Bell as people need to know - they need to be forced to think. Postmodernism looks at itself and believes that today’s views on religion, morality, etc. are correct - because it is a consensus of all views in one big pot. As one responder said, we need to be forced to think on these issues - for many, for the first time. Then we need to say, “Did God really say……?” I am corresponding with a friend who has fallen into “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” trap - “I will wait until I read the book to decide on whether it is orthodox or not!” She ignores what Bell has been saying in recent interviews and that he is well respected by men like Boyd and McLaren. That in itself should send up flares.
Although I appreciate what you are saying here, I can only agree up to a limited point. I haven’t read Bell so I cannot comment on him, but it is annoying when people attack traditional dogma for no valid reason other than that it is there to attack.
But, I have to wonder if Job’s friends might not have written a similar blog in response to Job. They certainly believed in what had been revealed through the Wisdom movement (Proverbs) and the Mosaic Law (Blessings and Curses). Job’s doubts were enfuriating to them because it was a rejection of what they felt God had revealed. The problem is, we know that they were wrong, because they were applying scripture incorrectly. I simply do not accept that the Bible is easy to understand or apply, and there are many important issues over which no firm stand can be taken; all that can be seen are the different sides (often embodied by different traditions), and we must make the most of it through dialogue and humility. To survey the different perspectives and say, the truth is here somewhere, but I’m not sure where, but I do know what is not true, IS very much humble, and the arrogance (I’m sorry to say it) of Christians who are bold when they should not be is no good for the Church. Boldness applies to preaching Christ resurrected; nearly everything else has leeway. Again, I have never read Bell so I cannot comment on him, and I know little to nothing about the Emerging Church; but this blog post, with all due respect, ignores the Christian experience.
Quote: “But he is trying to teach in a way that helps people find their own way. ”
But left to find their own way, what way will most people find? The broad road, or the narrow one? The Bible answers that question quite clearly.
“But left to find their own way, what way will most people find? The broad road, or the narrow one? The Bible answers that question quite clearly”
It does teach very clearly on this. But what it does not teach is to follow the doctrines of Tim Challies or the Pope. It teaches us to depend on God and God alone, which will undoubtedly manifest itself differently to different people shaped by a variety of contexts and upbringings.
This Post-Evangelical approach to Christianity - being doubtful, opaque, and questioning - sounds like Monty Python fodder.
Aircraft Mechanic:If the engine isn’t working, you can’t fly.
Post-Evangelical:That’s one belief in the larger narrative of aviation. What I’m saying is we should consider the fact that, as is the case with other aircraft, there could be more than one way to get this wonderful vehicle in the air - the rest of its engines are clearly functioning…
Aircraft Mechanic:But you don’t understand, if just one engine is damaged none of the other engines will do any good. If you insist on flying in this thing, you won’t make it past the end of the runway.
Post-Evangelical:What I like to focus on is the fact that flying is possible. Just last week a friend of mine flew in a brilliantly crafted, single engine plane. It was beautiful!
Aircraft Mechanic:But this is a 747, not a Cessna.
Post-Evangelical:That’s what makes this whole conversation vibrant and wonderfully exciting!
Aircraft Mechanic:You insist on flying in this plane but I’m telling you, the engine is out. It. Will. Not. Fly.
Post-Evangelical:I hear what you’re saying, really I do. But we have to remember that flying is a reality; it is a gift that should compel us to live that reality now.
Aircraft Mechanic:I really don’t understand what you’re on about.
Post-Evangelical:You’re asking the wrong question.
Aircraft Mechanic:I wasn’t asking a question.
Post-Evangelical:Exactly!
Jesus: These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Postmodern, emergent Jesus: These will maybe go away into eternal punishment for just a little while, but the righteous, maybe everyone else eventually, into eternal life.
Tim, I just want to say, Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! I needed to read this today, so thank you! :)
Yes! I agree, especially with the question issue. What I find is that so many questions are being asked, it’s throwing doubt on the truth of the scriptures. Questions are not bad, but should lead us TO the gospel, not from it.
There is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death…..
It is called orthodoxy for a reason because it has been forged from the Scriptures and by the sweat, blood, and lives of those who came before us. As OP said we can boldly claim the Truth that Scripture proclaims while leaving the peripheral to discussion. It does not matter if society can handle the Truth or if they want leeway with the boundaries.
You are right that boundaries do exist and that God placed them there in His wisdom without our consent or advice