Generous Orthodoxy Leads to Loss of Mission

Read this article tonight:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/tim-suttle/will-evangelicalism-last_b_2727883.html

Two troubling paragraphs:

"Mission fosters the capacious orthodoxy necessary for us to stick together. Mission allows for the generous diversity of thought which is essential to a healthy evangelical gene pool. Biologists teach us the less diverse the gene pool, the more at-risk the species. The more homogeneous our beliefs become the less likely evangelicals are to survive. We need a rich, diverse orthodoxy. As the evangelical truth-police work to silence all minority reports, they are actually working against the overall health of the tribe.

Those who wish to functionally excommunicate Rob Bell and others like him are alienating the very Christians who promise to provide the kind of theological diversity essential to our healthy future. We should be welcoming Bell's voice, not silencing it. If evangelicals have a future together, it will not be the way of those who cry "heresy" and let slip the dogs of war. It will be with those who unite around mission and prefer a rich theological landscape."

The Bible and orthodoxy are not something that needs a diversity. It is not acceptable or compatible to say that 'everyone gets into heaven' as Bell does, and what Jesus says in John 6:37-40: "³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ ForI have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Jesus is quite exclusive. He only permits into heaven, those He has called.

His biodiversity argument doesn't make any sense at all. God spent the entire Old Testament calling out his people to separate them from the diverse orthodoxy around them. Jesus carried that torch further in His ministry showing how the religious elite had perverted God's message of grace.

The second paragraph doesn't make any sense compared to Jesus and Paul's in the New Testament. Both of them fought for orthodoxy continuously. Jesus didn't 'generously diversify' His message to include the religious elite's view of works and hereditary based salvation. Paul opposed Peter in front of a group of church leaders in Galatia when Peter tried to act like a Judizer and put salvific value in circumcision. 

Both of these paragraphs highlight what my own church so often promotes: "Let's spend our energies helping God restore the earth. This is our most important goal." I would argue, the Bible describe's God's most important goal as giving Him glory and enjoying Him forever. We do this best when we do as His Son called us to do, and that's to make disciples from here to the nations. Disciples who individually dedicate themselves to Christ as Lord of their life, and then influence the area around them with His light to draw others to saving faith. 

Pastor Bell vs. MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If the video doesn't work here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/42098348#42098348

I don't know if Mr. Bashir is a Christian or not. He seems to be interviewing as a normal journalist would, seeking the truth and logically applying statements to understand their conclusions.

I appreciated this interview b/c it focused on logic and formal debate. There was no emotionalism that I could detect on the part of Mr. Bashir. And since we don't know if he is a Christian or not, it makes it easier to accept that he probably doesn't have a horse in the fight of whether Pastor Bell is orthodox or not.

Pastor Bell's chief argument against Mr. Bashir appears to me to be reducible to: "It's ok to believe whatever you want about Heaven and Hell as long as you can find someone in the history of Christianity who has believed it too." This seems terribly irresponsible for a pastor to tell his followers that truth and falsehood don't matter when it comes to understanding who God is. Isn't that the whole point of the second commandment? By not being clear, he is in effect suggesting to his parishioners that it's ok to worship a false god.

I also wanted to address a tweet I read about this interview earlier in the week:
"Not sure why everyone is claiming victory based on @realrobbell 's interview with Martin Bashir. Truth isn't based on who can argue better."
Sure a particular position (truth) can be correct, regardless of whether someone can argue well on its behalf. If my 4 year old can't put together a cogent argument to defend the pythagorean theorem, that doesn't make the theorem false. But if a particular truth is valid, there should be a logical defense of that truth. In our math example, a college math teacher (aka an expert in the field of math) could easily make the argument.

In this case we're not talking about a 4 year old being out of their depth, but we're talking to an expert in the field, a pastor talking about doctrine. In fact it's not just any doctrine, but it's a doctrine that the pastor in question seems to have studied well enough to write a book about it. If he can't argue his point cogently against a journalist who likely hasn't been to seminary and hasn't been studying the topic for the last x months, then how can we say that the 'truth' being defended by the pastor is valid? He of all people should be able to make logical arguments to defend it.

So no, truth isn't based on who can argue better. But if a qualified agent can't argue for a position they have established, then the veracity of that position is certainly questionable. Especially if their opponent argues better for their contrary position.

Where does that leave me? It challenges me to 1 Peter 3:15: "¹⁵but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," I need to: (1) Honor Christ as Holy (2) be prepared by studying and thinking about what the Bible says about who Christ is so that I can honor Him as Holy (3) Join with the Spirit, and be able to cogently dialogue with others about the truths in the Bible, in order to lead them to the truth the Bible proclaims. (4) be gentle and respectful.

Anyone want to guess which of those 4 steps are the hardest for me?

Reviews from Bell's book

Pastor Bell's publisher for "Love Wins" has released review copies of the book to various reviewers. I've found two reviews so far.

The first is from Greg Boyd:

http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/

The tricky part of this review is that Mr. Boyd doesn't use any scripture to defend Pastor Bell. Instead he focuses on four factors of why it's ok for Pastor Bell to raise the questions he does without actually answering them fully. It seems that if you're going to argue that someone is correct, then using scripture would be the right way to do it. But I guess not everyone holds scripture in as high regard as Jesus did.

You can guess from my analytical, and I hope mostly logical, postings that I prefer a linear argument. Excusing a pastor's questioning of what should be rock-solid truth, because the questioner is an artist doesn't sound like a reasonable defense to me. If draw pictures on my calculus exams and illude or call into question the pythagorean theorem, the math teacher is going to fail me, any defense of artist not withstanding...

The second review is from Tim Challies:

http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

This review is much easier for me to understand because Mr. Challies uses scripture throughout his review to rebut and point out the problems in Mr. Bell's implications and arguments. I appreciate where Mr. Challies points out where orthodox evangelicals would agree with Pastor Bell. It feels like he tried to be fair in his review, even though Mr. Challies clearly doesn't agree with Pastor Bell's conclusions.

Where do you stand in this debate?

Not really surprised...

Looks like Rob Bell has jumped the shark. Not that I am really surprised by his jump. And it does make me thankful in some senses since he makes it clearer now what he preaches instead of hiding as much and confusing people.

At the same time, I'm sad. Sad for Rob, sad for the thousands who follow him, saddest most for those who have followed and been condemned to hell for their belief in falsehood. I hope and pray that Rob can see the error of his belief and come to true faith.

What a great miracle of God would it be for Him to correct Rob and bring him publicly to the truth. Oh that He would show mercy.

Is this supposed to be a Gospel message?

Rob Bell has put another winner out on youtube:

Overall I don't care if he uses visual tricks, pumping music, and cool clothes. I don't particularly identify with it, but I lump that in with the "all things to all people that some might hear the Gospel". Similar to how I think we should translate the Bible to other languages, and dress appropriately to the culture so as not to offend.

That said here are a few of the things that most disturbed me. I'm trying hard to stick to the issues he brings up in the video. If any hint of distaste for Rob himself is interpreted, please know that I bear him personally no animosity. BUT I do carry much resentment for the concepts that he espouses and then tries to label as Christianity.

-- "If Death is all we have to look forward to, then Despair is our only hope." Before I get to the stuff I didn't like, I did want to point out that the beginning of his piece is pretty right on. I completely agree that without Christ despair is our only expectation. I would probably add that there's something more dangerous than despair though, and that's the judgment of God against sinners. It's not just this world we must fear, but the next. I may have a slightly different methodology so I don't mean to throw very hard stones at the 'despair' approach. However I don't know of any examples where Jesus started a witnessing encounter with a discussion of their despair. I know of many where He began by discussing their sin.

-- "This world matters to God, this world that God is restoring and Redeeming." This particular concept is rampant nowadays. Frankly the scripture support for this concept is very slim. In fact can anyone site an example where God says He's even going to keep this world? I thought He was going to create a new heavens and a new earth and destroy this one. In contrast to 'restoration' as the church's mission, the scriptural support for the church's mission as a disciple making body is much stronger. As far as I can tell, the main reason many churches have been pushing this 'restore the planet' agenda is because its much more appealing to the rest of the world than hearing a message about man's sin and need for a savior. Can anyone point to any examples in scripture where Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, or John recommended that we redeem the world politically or socioeconomically, apart from an out-growth of our desire and ability to share the gospel? Sure they took care of the poor, but they did it either for people who were already in the body, or as a gateway to share the gospel with them.

-- "Every act of good matters and will go on" This doesn't have any scriptural basis that I can think of. If anyone has any examples I'd be interested to hear it. On the other hand there are many verses that talk about how our works are nothing more than filthy rags. I think this message, like most of Rob's messages, are meant to be out-reach messages. Hearing this is very confusing if you don't know that your works can't contribute to your salvation. In fact i'd go so far as to say the confusion is dangerous. Because if you think you can earn your way to God's good side, then you are on the 'broad road leading to destruction'

-- "Everything that elevates the soul is a taste of what will be." This sparks very much of universalism. To me, I hear him implying: "Believe whatever makes you feel good and elevates you." On the other hand, Jesus was pretty clear that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And that no one could come to the Father but through Him. If Rob is serious about presenting the gospel, why wouldn't he be clear about it? Why would he twist it to try and be more 'encompassing'. The gospel is quite narrow. Paul is pretty clear about this in most of his epistles because people kept trying to broaden it. The Galatians tried to add Judaism, the Corinthians tried to add pagan practices, the Greeks tried to add philosophy. Our current culture tries to add "everything" so that no one is left out. Instead we should be pointing to the scriptures which proclaim that there is only way to heaven, and that is via the propitiating sacrifice of Jesus for our sins.

Nooma 23

here's a youtube link to this embeded video:



its got what looks like Portuguese sub titles but audio is in English.

What bugs me most about nooma videos is the imprecision of the language. The statements sort of thrown out there to be 'provocative' instead of informative. Just some examples from my notes after watching this movie. I took the notes fast so I might not have quoted perfectly:

"its my field. why should I let them on to take my stuff? its not fair" this is true its not fair and it shouldn't be extrapolated in how to run a government or your office or some other secular organization. However the church is not the government, nor is my family the government. We should be generous. Not to those who are lazy. The scriptures quoted from Deut. 24:19-22 are very clear that its to be left for widows, orphans, and aliens. These are people who are incapable of providing for themselves. Someone could easily hear what Rob says and think that the government should be providing health care, social security, and other benefits for people who haven't earned them.

"liberation is unfair, freedom is unfair, redemption is unfair, grace is unfair, God isn't fair." This is quite a dangerous statement. To say that God isn't fair means He isn't just. Saying He isn't just is a violation of scripture and the nature of God. He is fair. He punished sin! He also provided mercy through His Son's atoning death on the Cross. Now I don't think He has to be fair in His distribution of Grace its up to Him. But just saying God's not fair without some caviots and clarifications can be horribly confusing to people.

"when you empower others in their oppression, whatever that looks like. we find out out about God's power to us" That's fruit-cake. If you're a Christian you might being doing God's will and therefor feel empowered to further serve. But if you're not then just being nice to someone will make you feel better and that's it. In fact it will damn you worse because you'll think that you're doing good things and assuaging the guilt you've earned for cheating on your wife or taxes. Its a very very dangerous thing to say and do just to be nice.

"ultimately life is about a larger truth to find suffering. do something about it or we'll be miserable. our education time and money will turn on us if we don't give it away" I don't even have the slightest idea what he's trying to say here. "Turn on us" what does that mean? Millions of people are just happy thank you very much to do whatever makes them feel good. Being nice for nice's sake or even other people's sake doesn't mean or do anything if its not done for God. In fact as I said in the one above it hoses you even more because it tricks you into thinking you're doing something of benefit to yourself.

"our lives are either about us, or about a different path. this is why Jesus taught about serving" What??!?! our lives are about us or a different path? Why not tell us what the path is? How does this distinguish Christians from PETA followers? Jesus didn't teach about serving as an end to itself. He took pity on others and taught compassion as a way to reach them for the Gospel. How many times did He use a miracle just to point out to the pharisees that their good work in serving others was totally meaningless b/c they did it for the wrong reasons!

"extend unfairness to others. your overflow to someone else's necessity. find someone who needs what you have, only to discover they have what you needed all along." Huh? I guess in a sense he's talking about capitalism. If I find someone with a need that I can fill, I can sell it to them and get money back which is something I need to procure other goods and services that will help me. Oh wait, that's not the point of this talk I guess... Other Humans have nothing, nothing that I need in an ultimate sense. I sure appreciate nice words occasionally and thanksgiving for shoveling the walk from snow. But JESUS has what I need. He is the one offering salvation and grace and wonder and joy and wisdom and completeness. Serving someone else doesn't offer those things.