Piper and Boyd on the Tornado

You may already be aware that a number of tornados struck the Twin Cities area earlier this week. You may also be aware that John Piper attempted to explain the tornados as God's providence warning the ELCA (who was meeting about the issue of homosexuality) not to tolerate sin. It even made it on the evening news.

There is a lot I could say about this, and if you've read this blog with any regularity you know how much I think Piper's article is in poor taste. A resonate with Greg Boyd's sentiment when he says, "I feel I need to offer a public response, if only to remind non-Christians that not all Christians think like this."

Read his full response here.

UPDATE: Tony Jones and Scot McKnight (briefly) both comment on this as well.

Postmodern Presentation By Brad Cecil

| View | Upload your own

In Tony Jones' new book The New Christians, which I reviewed here, he gives a history of the inception of the emergent movement (before it was called that). One of the core elements to forming this core group and the core ideas was a powerpoint presentation done by Brad Cecil on Postmodernity. According to Tony in the book, the presentation "has attained legendary status among emergents."

The context of all of this coming up was the question of how can the church attract Gen Xers back to church in the same way Bill Hybels and Rick Warren attracted boomers and busters? Some were saying all the church needs to do is get hipper, grow go-tees and play cool music. Another group said that a deeper shift in philosophy was happening and that small, superficial changes were not enough. This second group became the starting core of the emergent movement, and this presentation became a sort of explanation of the shift they felt was taking place.

Above is said presentation. You should definitely read the book, and when you do, you can share in the presentation as well.

Let me know your thoughts.

Boyd on OT Violence, Continued.

Greg Boyd is moving right along in his series on violence in the Old Testament. He is to the point where he is offering theories, and then critiquing them. Here is an overview of what he has done so far.

Introduction- Linked Previously

What's at Stake?

[L]et's do our best to explain the depictions of God as violent in the Old Testament and to thereby reconcile them with the revelation of God in Christ. But for God’s sake (literally), don’t leverage your faith in Christ on the outcome of this investigation!

The Violent Strand of the Old Testament and Our Picture of God

[W]hatever else is at stake in the issue of explaining the violent strand of the Old Testament, our picture of God should not be. Fix your spiritual eyes on Jesus (2 Cor. 3:17-4:6; Col 3:5; Heb 12:2), not on the warrior God of the Old Testament.

OT Violence and Christian Behavior

Jesus himself seems quite aware that the attitude towards enemies he commands his followers to embrace is very different from some aspects of the Old Testament. For example, in the Old Testament God twice reigned down fire from heaven in judgment on various individuals and groups. Yet, when John and James wanted to do this same thing in the New Testament, Jesus rebuked them (Lk 9:52-55). It violated the spirit of the Kingdom Jesus came to establish to want God to act the way he did in the Old Testament!...Clearly, the way of the Kingdom Jesus was establishing was very different from the way of Yahweh in the violent strands of the Old Testament.

Could Old Testament Warriors Have Been Mistaken?- View #1

This is how God handles all violence, according to Eller. All war is the result of human estrangement from God, and so in this sense all war is a punishment for rebellion against God. “God doesn’t approve of war,” he says, “but this isn’t to say war is completely outside his plan.” Rather, “war is the punishment brought upon themselves by those who foster and create the kind of situations that lead to war. " Moreover, Eller argues, "it is not that the losing nation is the punished one and the winner merely the punisher. War is always punishment both ways”(79). So, as a regrettable concession, God worked with Israel’s Nimrodian mindset, as he worked with the Nimrodian mindset of others, to accomplish his purposes, as much as possible, in the world. And part of this purpose was to punish the sinful violent-mindedness of both the Israelites and their pagan enemies.

And all the while Yahweh was laying the groundwork for a future revelation of who he really is, what his character is really like and what kind of warfare he has really called us to.

A Defense of Eller's Thesis- Support for View #1

The basic point is that the Bible does not give us the unmediated voice of God. It gives us God’s voice mediated through culturally conditioned human witnesses. In this light, it doesn't seem too outlandish to suppose that certain Old Testament warriors and authors were right when they heard God telling them to fight his battles, but reflected their cultural conditioning when they interpreted this to mean they were to slaughter men, women and children. They expressed a God-inspired truth when they affirmed that God wanted to fight for them and give them the victory. But the way they expressed and applied this truth was culturally conditioned.

A Critique of Eller's Thesis- A Critique of View #1

These episodes of God causing carnage seem no more consistent with the God revealed on Calvary – the God who chooses to be killed rather than to kill – than the episodes of slaughtering that involve human agents. Hence, while Eller's thesis nicely removes the inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments regarding how God wants his people to treat enemies, it doesn't at all help remove the inconsistency regarding their portraits of God.


What do you guys think of Eller's view (view #1)?

Emerging Chart

Hello friends.

So I have been wanting to post this for awhile, but have been limited due to my html deficiencies. I am reading An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, a great book by the way, which is a collection of essays from around the emergent world. One particular essay is written by Tim Conder called "The Existing Church/Emerging Church Matrix: Collision, Credibility, Missional Collaboration, and Generative Friendship." As the title suggests, Tim is talking about the ways in which the emerging church and the existing church can work together and communicate. In the chapter, Tim has created a fantastic chart to encapsulate the differences between these two organisms he is comparing. I have tried with little success to recreate that chart in html form for you here. The result is too big to fit on my page (and there are some other issues as well. I welcome html advice). Suffice it to say, I am left to articulate the chart in mere words, imprecisely placed (what's the point, right?). So, here goes (ho hum).

The chart has two columns, labeled Existing/Modern and Emergent/Postmodern, followed by rows representing a number of categories. Here it is, and hopefully it makes some shadow of sense.

Existing/Modern VS Emergent/Postmodern.
Ethics: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Epistemology: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Theology: systematic/propositional vs narrative/missional
Gospel: eternal salvation vs present reign of God in this world
Mission: defined by personal, spiritual needs vs defined by God's redemptive agenda
Biblical Interpretation: propositional/dependent on theological systems vs contextual/narrative
Leadership:positional/hierarchical vs relational egalitarian
Spiritual Formation: linear/cognitive/personal vs nonlinear/holistic/communal
Basis of Community Formation: boundaries formed by doctrine/confession vs boundaries shaped by ethical and missional commitments

I'm not sure about you, but I think better when I have a visual, an organized framework to help me mentally absorb info. Does it help you? What are your responses to the chart? Would you agree with Tim's assessment?

Here are my responses:

1. The first one, ethics, is bound to make fundamentalists squirm. To suggest that ethics are anything other than absolute and never changing is heresy to some. However, it is undeniable that at least some (most?) ethics are contextual or corporate. Jesus even hints at this when talking of the early church ("binding and loosing" is thought to mean allow or disallow, "when two or three gather in my name" is in the context of church discipline, and these suggest that the early Christians are contextually and communally deciding the ethics of their community). Now this can certainly get dangerous if taken to an extreme, but let us not make it say something it is not or jump to extreme conclusions.

2. Spiritual Formation as communal is also a breath of fresh air as I've noticed it in the emerging church. I spent my first years as a Christian in the largely individualistic evangelical "community." I am a fan of "sharing faith" with others in community, and I'm glad to see that becoming stressed more and more. By the way, I think the small groups movement in evangelicalism is, at least in part, a longing of Christians to be less individual and more communal. However, to truly transform, some major shifts in how evangelicals view spiritual formation need to happen.

3. I love the Basis of Community Formation. Emergents embrace the reality that we cannot agree on all of the minor (or even the major) points of theology. But, perhaps we can all agree in certain elements of practice (i.e. social justice, reducing poverty, communion, prayer, mission etc.).

A Christianity Worth Believing

Doug Pagitt was nice enough to give me an advance copy of his forthcoming book called A Christianity Worth Believing (due out in May). I finished reading it and I thought I would offer some thoughts.

First, a disclaimer: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE NARROW. As is normal in emergent writing, Doug challenges some "sacred cows" that will really make fundamentalists mad. If that is you, if you can't handle controversy, if you can't handle wrestling with new ideas, ideas different than your own, if you think you have God figured out, do not read this book.

To Everyone else, I think it is a terrific book.

One of the main themes in the book is something that I had been thinking about for about a year. I heard a speaker talking about Islam say, "Islam is essentially 7th century Arabian culture put into the form of a religion." Now, I realize that is overly simplistic, but it makes a good point. It explains a lot of the details of the religion, the suppression of women, the outfits etc. Now, my thinking led me to this thought: We would be naive to think that culture has not been codified in the Bible. And, in fact, much culture is in the Bible, and at least some of what the Bible says we take as culture and no more. From the brutality of the Old Testament Law to Paul telling women not to wear jewelry, we all agree that there are elements of culture in scripture that we don't take as "absolute truth" or even as theology, but as the innerworkings of a culture that is thousands of years old and very different from ours. There is another ring of this reality where i would say most of us agree, but not all, namely the roles of women (i.e. Paul writing to Timothy). Many (perhaps most) of us take these statements to be cultural demands, not truth once and for all.

My questioning in the last year led me to think of just how much of our New Testament is culture, specifically tailored for the first century, and how much is true once and for all? One of Doug's main themes in the book deals with this very issue. More pointedly, Doug looks into the Greek influences, not so much in scripture, but in the first few centuries when our primary creeds, theologies, and beliefs about God were being formed.

For example, Doug eventually arrives at this question:

Is it necessary to convert to a particular worldview in order to hold the Christian faith? Or in this case, does a person have to be a fifth - century Augustinian in order to be a follower of Jesus? The answer, of course, is no...I believe that it is the tradition of our faith to constantly renew, rethink, and reformulate our ideas about what it means to follow God.

pg 49

And also, about those who worry about the faith being distorted over time,

Maybe they worry that the essentials will be lost over time and we will one day be left with a distorted, watered - down story that bears no resemblance to the one with which we started. But I think we have the opposite problem. The issue Christianity faces today is not that the stories are watered down; it's that they've been set in stone — often leading to the very distortion we fear.

pg 31

The first eight chapters or so are Doug sharing personal stories from his own conversion as well as a critique of modern Christianity (it is more than that, but I'm being general). The rest of the book presents new ways of looking at some age old thinking in the Christian movement. Doug challenges long held metaphors and offers some new ones on topics like sin, humanity, the Bible and others. Here are a few snapshots of what he says about different topics.

On church and state:

History has proved the idea of a state religion to be a rather troubling development in the Christian story — the institutionalization and coercion that come with empire are not really compatible with the gospel message.

pg 43

On the dangers of using the Bible as a weapon:

So much of what I've come to believe about God and humanity and Jesus and the way we are to live comes from the Bible. For me, it is a living thing. It is a member of my community and a vital source of wisdom and truth. But it's rarely used that way. Which is why I often cringe when I hear someone getting ready to use the Bible.

In my years of being a Christian, I have witnessed the most brutal fights over the Bible. I know families where some members no longer speak to one another because of disagreements over the Bible. I have heard stories of people losing their jobs because they disagree with someone about a biblical principle. Entire denominations have split over disagreements about the “proper” interpretation of the Bible. I have witnessed people saying and doing heinous things with the justification that the Bible made them do it.

pg 54

And on rethinking sin:

Sin isn't a legal problem with God; it's a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that's what sin is — disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God.

pg 159


Even if you disagreed with every point he makes, it is at the very least a healthy walkthrough for rethinking some key elements of the Christian faith, which is always good. He is a great thinker and a great story teller. If you want Doug's take on rethinking some of the elements of Christianity and his vision for the Jesus story played out in today's world to challenge and inspire you, I doubt you will be disappointed.

6 Questions Emerging Christians are Asking

Scot McKnight was a part of a panel at a conference recently talking about emerging Christians. Scot has come up with a list of the six most common questions (or types of questions) that Emerging Christians are Asking.

I have done my best to transcribe quotes from Scot's talk to make the point. There isn't much there, but he went over this pretty quickly. You can find the whole panel discussion on the Emergent Village podcast in 2 parts called the 2007 AARP Panel (it is about 38 minutes into part 1).

Also, one more note I should make. Scot told a lead in story where he used a "Blue Parakete" as a metaphor for emerging Christians, which in the story is basically saying that they are weird to the traditional (meaning both evangelical and mainline) church. When that term is used, that is what he is referring to. Scot is coming out with a book soon by the same name.

6 Questions Emerging Christians are Asking (that the traditional church doesn't want to hear)

1. What kind of truth can be found in scripture

"The authors of the Bible are real human beings with real human vocabularies and that they're not all American-speaking, NIV-writing type people. That they learn Paul had his opinions, and the writer of Hebrews."

"And so they're begining to ask questions about scripture that an older generation thought it had answered and knew that it had final answers an that everyone would conform to these answers, and those who didn't were blue paraketes and would just squak on there own somewhere else. I think they're asking fair questions about scripture."

2. If Evolution isn't true, I would like to ask God why he made a world that looks so much like evolution?

"This is a generation that isn't even attracted to questions proving that Genesis 1-11 is historical record. They don't care about creation science. They believe in evolution and that's just the way it is and they want to be Christians and believe in these things."

3. Questions about Christians, and the kind of behavior Christians show

"They grew up with the scandals of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and the priests."

"They just don't trust institutional leaders in Christian churches."

"If Paul says those who are in Christ are a new creation, why are there so many old creatures in the church? Why is this going on? And they are scandalized by some of the behaviors of Christians."

4. Questions about Hell

"Scot, my evangelical pastor tells me that people who haven't heard the gospel are going to hell. Is he really telling me that everybody in North Korea who never has a chance to hear the gospel is going to Hell? I just don't believe that's true."

"This question is not going away. This is not a questions that evangelicals and orthodox Christians can simply give a traditional answer and get by with it anymore."

5. Moral Questions

The shift is from asking historical questions about contradictions between Chronicles and Kings or were there three Isaiah's to asking why was Jephthah in the Bible and then why was he valorized in Hebrews 11? What about the rapes and sexual abuse in the Bible?

Scot says, "I find these questions far more penetrating than those old historical questions."

6. Social Location

"There is social location to everything we talk about, the language we talk about, the theology we shape, the way we talk about the gospel, the wqy we preach the gospel, the way we respond to the gospel. These things are socially located. And I find emerging Christians not only admitting that and humbling themselves, they develop a chastened epistemology because of it, but they delight in it."

"They are not seeking a universal theology, but they are willing to live with a theology for the midwest, or the east coast, or that sort of thing."

He concludes by saying:

"I think the church needs to [preach] that these people are okay. Church is a great place for questions, rather than a place that should kick people out who have really good, deconstructive, at times, questions."

Thoughts? Have you been asking questions like these or heard them asked? I think that is one foundational element of the Emerging Christians, that they have questions about all kinds of things the last generation of Christians thought they had settled and never questioned. In fact, that generation is often uncomfortable with questions like these.

Your reactions?

Heresy

I've been thinking a lot lately about his word "Heresy" or its more accusative brother, "Heretic," and it has lead me to a conclusion: We shouldn't use the word Heresy (or Heretic) anymore.

Here is why.

1. The word is too strong

The word heresy is an old word, dating back to the 2nd century CE and Irenaeus. It comes from the Greek word meaning choose, referring to a choice of held beliefs. Now, we all know that a word can have a denotative meaning (the literal meaning, what the word's definition is) and a connotative meaning (the emotion that the word stirs up and what it is associated with). A classic example of this, and a word that I am intentionally using as an example for this discussion, is the word Nazi. The word Nazi denotes a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party that was strong in Germany in the 30's and 40's. The word Nazi has a connotation that is much different, and is associated with the killing of 12 million people, 6 million of them being Jews, and the racism, war, and destruction that went with the world events in the late 30's and 40's. So, then, to call someone a Nazi is not to accuse them of identifying with the National Socialist German Workers' Party, but with the other events and emotions that went with that word.

The word heresy, to a lesser degree, of course, has a similar effect. Though the word is very old and means (denotes) a challenge of the prescribes system of belief, the word is associated with the time when the Catholic church was at its height (of both power and evil), and would often burn heretics at the stake. Therefore, the word heresy, or calling someone a heretic, can't help but conjure up images from stories and movies of what they did to heretics in the middle ages. We should not wish that fate on anyone. So, though the word denotes a valid concept, it also has a connotation that is negative and violent.

2. The word has little or no meaning

Secondly, though the connotation is extremely negative, even if taken at face value, the word has very little usefulness. Essentially, calling someone a heretic is to assert that you disagree with that person. If I am an Armenian and you are a Calvinist and I call you a heretic, all I am saying is that we have different historical views about certain aspects of God, and that I think I'm right. You could easily assert the same. And, here is the point, neither of us would really be saying anything useful. The face of Christendom today encompasses a kaleidoscope of views with only a very few "non-negotiables" at the center. From my experience, it is generally on the peripheral matters that the term heresy is used, which seems all the more inappropriate. Why, then, use the word heresy, when disagreement is so obvious?

3. The word is divisive

Lastly, but clearly most obvious, the word heresy is so very divisive. It is the trump card in an argument. When this word is used, one is no longer involved in a conversation, but it has become slander.

Furthermore, calling someone a heretic certainly does not make friends, but only enemies. By doing this, the speaker has drawn a line in the sand and judged (rather than letting God judge), automatically creating two sides, mine and theirs, "us" and "them." This is in no way productive.

In addition, using this word is narrow. It is not graciously considering another's opinions, wrestling with it, and agreeing to disagree. Rather, it is defining orthodoxy based upon ones' own personal view. May we thank God for the heresies (and heretics) throughout the generations, for those who have challenged our incorrect views of God have made us into better thinkers (Luther comes to the front of my mind, as does Dr. King, on this day in which we celebrate his life).

In conclusion, let me say that I am not against discernment, disagreement, or even orthodoxy. But may we always keep in our minds the sentiments of Tony Campolo, that we are all heretics in some sense, because no theology is perfect, nor can mere words capture the nature of an infinite God. They all fall short. May we have the humility to avoid this word, and may we always be thinking and seeking God for truth.

The Case for Conditionalism

I read the book Two Views of Hell recently. In the book two scholars, Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, offer the two most common views of Hell. Fudge makes the case for an increasingly popular view called Conditionalism, which is the belief that humans are not kept alive forever in unending torment, but that there is an end to the existence of the unrighteous. Traditionalism is, you guessed it, more traditional, and is the view that the majority of Christians have held throughout history, that souls live forever, the righteous to everlasting life and the unrighteous to everlasting torture in Hell. After each makes their case, the other critiques the author's view, so the book is a sort of conversation.

What I thought I would do is offer a thumbnail sketch of the arguments for Conditionalism. I'm choosing not to argue for Traditionalism because, frankly, so many hold to this view that the argument for it is probably obvious. Before I begin, though, a few words.

1. Please don't assume that I have signed my name on the dotted line for Conditionalism, or Traditionalism for that matter. I think this is an interesting discussion to have, but don't think I am advocating one view over another or that I'm trying to convert anybody.

2. Realize that I'm offering merely a cursory glance at Conditionalism, which may not even be fair to the view. If this topic interests you, I encourage you to check out some more material on this debate (see Fudge, The Fire That Consumes and Peterson, Hell on Trial).

3. I fully expect this picture of Condtionalism to make some people mad. What I want to know is, why? Why is it that the idea of the unrighteous not burning forever angers some so much? And, is that healthy?

Okay, here we go:

The basic premise is this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

We see verses like this throughout scripture and there is no reason to expect that they should not be taken for their clear, literal meaning. The two destinies as presented by scripture are salvation or destruction, eternal life or eternal death, but nowhere in scripture is it stated that the lost will be forever kept alive to be tormented in Hell.

The King James Bible first uses the term "fire and brimstone" (translated in other versions as "burning sulphur") in Genesis 19:24 when talking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is referred back to as "'an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly' at the end of time. (2 Peter 2:6)" pg 28.

In addition, "The writers of the Bible use the same verbs to describe the eternal fate of the lost that they use to describe the judgment brought by the great flood. Just as with the flood, the ungodly will 'perish,' 'die,' and 'be destroyed.'" pg 27

The wicked end up "like chaff that the wind blows away" (Psalm 1:4-6), and "Their destiny is destruction" (Phil 3:18). They can anticipate "only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Heb10:26-27) etc.

The idea of humans possessing a soul that lives forever was first advocated by Plato. Fudge argues that it is this non-Christian source from which Christians (from about the time of Augustine) derive the idea that the soul lives forever and cannot be destroyed. But, scripture teaches differently. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Let it be made clear that Fudge does not deny Hell, but merely the idea that the wicked live forever in torment. Hell, according to Fudge, is the final destiny of the wicked where they will be consumed and be no more.

The problematic texts:

Now, there are a few instances that seem to suggest Traditionalism, that have been used by Traditionalists as proof texts for years, but it should be noted that they are in the minority, and if taken to advocate Traditionalism, they stand in opposition to many other scriptures that seem clear. Fudge's argument stands on the basic hermeneutical practice that one cannot take a few exceptions and reinterpret the majority of the verses on the topic to agree with the exceptions. On the contrary, one is to seek to understand the few that seem to be exceptions in light of the vast majority of plain and clear verses.

Isaiah 33:14 asks the question "Who of us can dwell with everlasting burning?" Taken out of context, this could advocate for Traditionalism, but looking at the rest of the verse shows that wicked nations "will be burned to ashes" and like "bushes that are cut down and set on fire" (vs 12).

Isaiah 66:24 tells of a worm that will not die and a fire that will not be quenched. Concerning this, Fudge says, "In chapter 66, Isaiah anticipates the same scene [as in Isaiah 37] on a massive scale at the end of time. In this prophetic picture, as in the historical event of Isaiah's day, the righteous view "the dead bodies" of the wicked. They see corpses, not living people. They view destruction, not conscious misery. Discarded corpses are fit only for worms (maggots) and fire--both insatiable agents of disintegration and decomposition." pg 32 (emphasis original)

Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is often used by Traditionalists as proof. Fudges argues that "Even taken literally...the story concerns only the intermediate state of two Jewish men who died while Jesus was still teaching on earth" (pg 40). He also says the story "tell[s] us absolutely nothing about the final destiny of the damned" (pg 41). In addition, to take it literally would require that we believe that the saved and the lost can converse with each other after death, in full view of each other and at close range. Fudge says "Few serious interpreters attempt to take the details of the story literally" (pg 41). This takes us to an area that needs a bit of elaboration. Whether there is an intermediate period of torment, and for how long that would be, and if each person would endure the same length of this period is not of Fudge's concern. You would find Conditionalists who hold each of those views. What the view is centrally concerned with, and what Fudge argues that the Bible is clear on throughout, is that the end is destruction for the wicked, not eternal life in torment.

Matthew 18:8-9 talks about the end of the wicked being thrown into "eternal fire." Fudges states: "Gehenna is the "eternal" fire for two reasons. First, it is not part of the present age but the age to come. It does not belong to time but to eternity. Second, those who go into it suffer everlasting destruction. When the unquenchable fire finally destroys the lost, they will be gone forever." (pg 44)

As Fudge wraps it up, he says, "the notion that the wicked will live forever in inescapable pain contradicts the clear, consistent teaching of scripture from Genesis to Revelation." (pg 80)

Thoughts on this compelling, but no doubt controversial view? In my mind, it seems more convenient to believe in Conditionalism rather than eternal torment (asking would a loving God keep sinners alive forever just to punish them?). But, the convenient view is not always true. Your thoughts?

Emergent Thinking

An interesting thought by Jeff Goins from his essay on Pilgrimage, featured on the Emergent Podcast:

What if a generation was humble enough to admit that they still don't have God figured out, that He's still a mystery, and that intrigue leads them into all kinds of radical adventures? What if we took some time off and saw what God really had to offer the man or woman that was totally consecrated to him? I can't help but dream.

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 4

Below is the second half of the conversation j razz and I had almost a year ago. May we continue to involve ourselves in conversations that stretch us.

_________________________________________

Nick said...

Man, these are becoming some long posts, huh?

I appreciate you clarifying some things. I understand that you were not accusing me of anything, but I also think it's clear that I clarify that we do or don’t do certain things.

Now, for some dialogue/commentary:

I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.

See, this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him. We will have all eternity to praise (not that it isn’t important now), but we can only win people for a certain time. I think that is God's “MO” and Jesus' when he was on earth: that for this season, God desiring that his people come back to him.

I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose. It isn’t asking “what's in it for me?”, because evangelism doesn’t always help out the believer. It would be much more comfortable to make church a social club with nice carpet and not do the work to reach anybody, but that would not be God's will. I agree that scripture is concerned with glorifying God through the son, but the reason seems to be so that "he will draw all men unto him." It goes full circle back to that.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.

We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit...

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved in salvation (of course). The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful. Why aren't we? We have to answer the pragmatic questions. I don’t mean to be too "business minded", b/c the church is not a business, but the bottom line does count. Souls matter.

To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about the rich man and Lazarus. Although it seems clear that the point is to use Lazarus as a foil for the Pharisees and make a point about position on earth vs the afterlife. Although, I will grant you, Jesus does talk about Hell here, though I would argue that it isn’t the point. Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die...

Yeah, this argument is used a lot. My response, like I said, is that I think love is a better motivator than fear. For example, if we did a study and told 100 rafters that there was a waterfall and 26 of them listened, then told the next 100 to pull over and that there were many great things to see on the shore and 54 of them responded, we would be fools not to use the 2nd option. I think that is a closer comparison to the point I am making. I believe in urgency and all that, but I think the truth is that the second way works better; that love is a better motivator. Please forgive the analogy, because I know it isn’t exact, it isn’t that black and white, and it seems to suggest that we are keeping the truth from them. That is not what I am saying (analogies are only so good, you know?). I am simply saying that I am making my point on practicality. The argument against this is that those converted based on love are not real converts, or that they fall away when trouble hits, but I have seen enough examples of people being saved this way to be convinced that that theory is simply not true.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well. I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that on the final day there will be 2 kinds of people: those that say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." People can choose to be their own king and go to hell or to put Jesus as Lord and go to heaven. It is their choice.

Again, I appreciate the dialogue. It is great to have a disagreement where there is mutual respect. Thanks, j razz.

_______________________________________

j razz said...

...this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him.

I think that this is one of our biggest humps to cross. Your foundational element is that God’s primary goal is to attempt to restore as much of creation before His Son returns for the purpose of right fellowship. My foundational element is that God seeks His glory and all of creation’s purpose is to glorify God.

The view I hold is that God cannot and will not fail at anything He seeks to accomplish (He is sovereign). If God supplied a means (Christ’s redemptive work on the cross) then He will see it through to its rightful end (Redeeming a people for Himself). Christ did not die for all to have the opportunity to make it to Heaven (at least I can’t find that in scripture), Christ died for a real, concrete purpose- to save that which was lost (MT. 18.11); He gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1.4); He gave His life as a ransom for many (MT. 20.28); He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people…(Titus 2.14); He loved the church and gave Himself for it… (He even goes on here to explain why He gave Himself for it.)(Eph. 5.25-27). So, if Christ died to fulfill a specific purpose- that being to redeem us, then He either accomplished that goal of redemption on the Cross or He did not. If He didn’t then He failed and would cease to be God and we both would be living and believing a lie. I think you would say that you don’t agree with my premise. I think you would say that Christ died so that all and any may come to Him. (Correct me if I am wrong). I would say that scripture makes it very clear that He died specifically for those that the Father has given Him. If He died for a possibility what do we do with the scripture that says He died for a purpose? Either 1. He died for all of the sins of all people or 2. He died for some of the sins of all people, or 3. He died for all of the sins of some people. If the first, why are people going to Hell? His death and atoning work was effective and wrought redemption; there is power in the blood. If the second, no one would be worthy of being with the Lord as we would still have sin that is un-atoned for. If the third, then Christ’s work on the cross can be said to have merit as it was a means to an end as it brought about the end goal that was established in scripture as mentioned above; redeeming a people unto Himself.

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose.

To respond to this, j razz included a lengthy quote from J.I. Packer that you can find here. I have removed it for space purposes.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.


I believe that God is completely sovereign over every thing that is, was and will be. In addition to that, I also believe that man is completely responsible for every action they commit, every thought they think and every word they say. I would say that these two things appear as contradictory statements, but I would say that appearances are deceiving. For more on this read The So-Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man.

The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful.

What do we do with great Christian men like William Carey who did not see one single convert for years into his ministry to India and all the while his wife and children fell ill and some died? What do we do with men like Jeremiah or Jonas? What do we do with men like Paul who went to the market place and few believed? Unless the Spirit gives them a regenerated heart and ears to hear, the gospel message falls on deaf ears. I agree, if no one comes to Christ, then something is wrong, but our time and our wisdom is not the timing of God nor His wisdom. What we think to be right and good is folly to God.

Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I do not think that we should avoid it either. I also do not think that we should over emphasize it either. That was really the point I was making. It has its place and if we leave it out, then we neglect the whole of the message. We need not build up one side to the detriment of the other else we find ourselves being partial and witholding truth.


As for the waterfall argument, my main point is not that I would rather be told about Hell than Heaven, it is that I would rather be told both that Christianity has much to offer as well as Hell is a real place where those who do not believe in Christ will be placed after the judgment. I followed up that paragraph with that statement as I would rather be told the truth than only part of the truth.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well.

If God institutes a certain method that is to bring about a salvific response and that response hinges on the Holy Spirit first regenerating a heart to be able to respond to the gospel message, I would conclude that God is demonstrating His authority over salvation. I would further conclude that man is responsible for what he does with the gospel message whether or not he has a heart to believe as the Gospel is a command, not an option. If the man has no desire to obey the command as he is given over to his own wickedness, he is held accountable for his disobedience. What separates that man from you or me? God’s intervening grace in our lives in that He chose to regenerate our hearts and give us ears to hear the truth of the gospel so that we would respond in obedience to the gospel call. God is not impotent; He does not let man dictate their future to Him. In the same way, God lets no sin go unpunished. If men disobey His gospel command, they stand judged already and will be placed in their appropriate place. If men obey the gospel command, they too will be placed in their rightful place based solely on the merits of Christ.

Nick again, it has been a pleasure. If only all my dialogues could be of this caliber. Have a great day buddy and just for the record, I do give 2 craps :)

j razz

________________________________________

Nick said...

thanks for the comments, j razz. I must say though, I am diducting two points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

I think we have hit a wall. Let me recap what I think we have found that our differences are, and see if you agree.

You hold to a sort of divine election belief, a "no man will be saved unless God chooses him" idea.

vs

I hold to a "whosoever will come, can come" idea.

This is an age old debate the books have literally been written about. Their is honestly biblical evidence for both. I doudt you and I will solve this issue.


You feel that God's purpose is his own glory.

vs

I feel that God's purpose is fellowship with his creation, which can only happen if his creation is being brought back to him, which is the primary purpose of the church.

This is fairly major, but I think what is interesting is how we see each belief playing itself out in practice. That is what originally got us discussing this topic.

You have stated that God actively send those who dont follow him to Hell.

vs

Hell was not meant for people, but for the Devil and his angels, but people choose to go there when they make themselves king over God.

Im not sure how much of this is just semantics, but, again, i think it plays itself out in our practice. Beliefs matter, because they effect us in a myriad of ways.

Does this sound fair, j razz? I am of course better at articulating my side than yours, but I tried to do my best. If you think I'm close, than we can agree to disagree, and walk away from this with a better understanding of the other person's beliefs.

Thanks again, friend.

Nick
___________________________________________


j razz said...

I am diducting to points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

Wow! I am humbled that you think I write like J.I. Packer. You have more than made my weekend! About deducting two points- if you must! He just says it so much better than I.

I will just clarify my position where I think it is necessary and then sign off :)

Divine election vs. Whosoever will...

I would say it is less a vs and more of a both and. Whosoever will come will... because God deemed it so.

I doubt you and I will solve this issue.

Come on Nick, let's give it that old college try :)

God's Glory vs God seeking fellowship with creation

Yes.

God sends people to Hell vs Hell is for Satan and his angels

Yes. I would also add to this that if God never intended Hell to be for the majority of mankind, He would not send them there- he would send them where they belong b/c He is God and He is Sovereign and He never settles b/c He has the means not to.

Nick, this really has been a pleasure and a great example of as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. I think that God has been glorified through this and hopefully whoever stumbles upon this will see how Christians can disagree and still be Christians and still be brothers in Christ.

You have been a gentleman in this and I have gained respect for you.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

j razz

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 3

As we continue to look at how respectful, honest, and fair conversation can be used to help us learn and grow as disciples of Christ, but with those who share our faith and those who do not, I wanted to revisit a post I did back in Febuary and the conversation that flowed from it. My conversation partner was j razz, a dear brother in Christ and a fellow blogger. The first half of our conversation is posted below.

As an intro, here is the basic content of the post. I was thinking about preaching and what my philosophies are on the topic, and wrote the following article.

____________________________________

1. Preach From the Bible

I had a professor that once told my class to always read, quote, and paraphrase the Bible in sermons as much as possible. "That way, when you are done, you know you said something inspired." Well said, Dr. Nunnally. I don't believe every sermon (or even most sermons) needs to be verse by verse expository preaching, but scripture should always be used. How can we get by with not using it?

2. Keep it Practical

My currect senior pastor holds to the idea that sermons should all be very practical. I agree. In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand. They don't want hear about why we should boil goats in their mother's milk, but things like parenting, conflict, influencing culture, God's plan for marriage etc. they tend to care about because it speaks to their lives. There is a place for the esoteric studies of fairly insignificant bits of scripture, but that is not a Sunday morning. Another word for this would be relevance. People need something that is going to pertain to their lives.

3. Use Humor/Entertainment

Erwin McManus was once challenged by someone who accused his church of trying too hard to entertain people. His response, in my own words, was basically that to entertain someone was simply keeping their attention. Some people are entertained by hymns, or organ music, or expository preaching, or drama, or humor etc. I think he makes a great point. We are all trying to communicate a timeless message in new, creative ways. Whatever form that communication takes should depend on the audience. In LiveWire Student Ministries we use lots of humor, video, movement etc., because young people (actually, all people) learn in multi-sensory ways. This is not diluting the message, but rather, becoming better at communicating it. Jesus used stories, object lessons, humor etc. in his teaching, so why are we afraid to?

I must say though, that this, like all things, can easily go too far. Making jokes at a time that needs to be serious can lose a crownd quickly. Also, when the goal becomes entertainment, rather than communicating the message, it has gone too far.

4. Be Semi-Normal

Weirdness is not a spiritual gift; neither is it admirable. Some preachers seem to get off on using "insider language" or "preacher voices." Is there anything more annoying? This is the whole problem with the Christian Subculture that has been created. By pulling back and secluding, we have lost the right and the opportunity to speak into the culture. I am going to a conference in 2 weeks where Donald Miller will be giving a talk called "How to Share the Gospel Without Weirding People Out." I think that is a great point.

Now, I say semi-normal, because it is not entirely normal to lay down one's life for a dead criminal, or to simulate eating his body and drinking his blood or lots of other things for that matter. There is a level of percieved weirdness that all outsiders might have for Christians that involve core doctrines that just come with the territorry. But people need a real person. They are very good at spotting the phony.

5. Talk about Jesus

I tend to think that no matter what topic a person is preaching on, they should involve Jesus in the process. It shouldn't be hard, for he is all over the Bible, even in the Old Testament. It seems that the "model" from the book of Acts is just to tell about Jesus and what he did. That seemed to work pretty well. Therefore, we would do well to involve Jesus in our message every time, and to tell the story of the cross regularly.

There it is. It is certainly not perfect nor is it comprehensive, but I have my thoughts down. Feel free to critique, disagree, and call me a heretic if you must, but may we never give up the journey of becoming better communicators of the most important message in the world.

____________________________________________
Here is the conversation that followed from this post.

j razz said...

In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand.

Nick,

Not picking I promise.

With this statement, why would it be beneficial to dumb down the message for a handful, when you have a faithful majority (or at least those who would claim to be Christians) that needs to move on from the milk to the meat as the author of Hebrews would say?

Would the corporate worship time not be better suited for building up and encouraging the believer with the truths of scripture no matter how hard? The whole of scripture was given to us so that we may learn from it and the examples within. The non-believers only need to hear the gospel to be saved. The believer needs to hear the whole counsel of God to grow in sanctification. If your Sunday morning services are to be geared towards those who would claim no allegiance to Christ, why then use anything other than the gospel- the good news? After all, scripture does state that the gospel is the only means under Heaven by which a man can be saved.
It really seems out of place that preaching to the non-believers would be the primary focus of a Sunday morning service. If it is though, when do the saints gather together and fellowship fulfill Col. 3.16? I will stop there.

Just some questions for you Nick. I hope you have a great weekend buddy.

j razz

_______________________________________


Nick said...

Thanks for the input, J razz.

I dont mean "to dumb it down", I just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about. We can preach a sermon that is applicable to a person who isn't "in" yet, as well as move the "faithful majority" as you say, "from milk to meat." We really can dp both. Our Senior pastor just finished a series on conflict...something everyone deals with and could get better at dealing with, but also talked about Christ and how he has called us to handle it and what our responsibility is etc. I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one for the other.

That being said, we do have other times of more intensive Bible study and small group time where christians have the opportunity to dig deeper.

The other thing is that we need to avoid insider language, like christianity is a club. I dont think you were referring to that here, though.

Just to clarify, preaching to the non-believers is NOT the primary focus of a Sunday morning service, but we do make ourselves aware that some will be present (we hope and pray).

________________________________________

j razz said...

I dont mean to dumb it down, i just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about.

I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement whereas I would say that the Bible is very applicable and sermons should seek to be faithful to the text. 1. I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom. 2. The original authors who were inspired by God wrote with purpose when composing the New and Old Testaments. Their message meant something then and it means something now. I would say it is the preacher’s responsibility to show what the text meant, what it means and how it is relevant today. After all, the prophets and apostles were not writing for the joy of it. 3. Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it. If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

Preaching is not barred by scripture from using any other method than this, but I would dare say that examples are bountiful where this method (expositing/applying) is used over and over again in scripture. If we look at the New Testament’s Pauline epistles and letters, we mainly see instruction/explanation given to the local church dealing with doctrinal issues that leads into application. Paul addresses his readers from truth’s sturdy foundation and then he builds a structure of ethics/application. I think this structure can be found in most any of Paul’s writings, and if he is any example by which we are to learn from, then where is the irrelevance? Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John. It would seem that if the authors of scripture inspired by the Author of scripture wrote the way they did, it was because that is how God deemed it to be so. If we can learn anything from examples, I think it would be their example we would learn most from as I do not know any other men that have been inspired by God to perform the task of building up the church at its very foundation.

I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one (preaching to unbelievers) for the other(preaching to believers).

Here again, I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement as I would agree with the statement on face-value but disagree with some methods of carrying it out. I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer. This is also relevant to a believer as we need to be reminded of the gospel regularly. When Paul spoke in the market place to the Greeks, he told them of Christ in a way that they would understand. He went out to them and spoke to them where they were at. But, when Paul wrote letters to the local churches of Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, etc., he did not make provisions in his letters that spoke to the unbelievers in their mist. He spoke to the church and the local church at that.

Now, if we have unbelievers among us when we worship and hopefully we do, they should be presented with the truth of the gospel message. That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you. Christ has already conquered Satan, Sin, and Death and it is just a matter of time before He comes to claim what is rightfully His. It would seem that if a preacher was faithful to the text- preached through its original meaning, its meaning to today’s believers and its application, one application would always be that if you do not repent and believe and obey Christ, then Hell awaits you. This is how I see the prophets worked: God is passing judgment, if you repent that judgment will pass over you, if you do not then you will face that judgment. That is how I see the Gospel message as working: Jesus has done what Adam could not do. Because of this, those who believe on Him for salvation will escape judgment while those who do not will be forced to face judgment for all eternity.

Now, with all that being said, the Bible does not state that a church service must consist of _____. I would be a legalist if I said it did. The Bible does not give us commands as to what is to be done or said, but again, the Bible does give us examples which we can follow. Now whether you follow those examples or not are up to you.

Good conversation Nick, I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to dialogue with me. I hope you have a great week. By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

____________________________________________

Nick said...

Thanks again J razz. This is a fun dialogue.

I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom

I agree, and notice that my #1 point was to use scripture. Context is equally important.

Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it

I think this is easy to say, and hard to disagree with, but reality is that it is difficult. Communicating this timeless message in a way that is relevant to an ever changing culture is hard. Is scripture relevant? Yes. But we are separated by 2000 years of time and culture (at best), so the job becomes increasingly difficult to communicate the message in a relevant way. I could pick a number of scriptures to speak on, for example, "Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart. Communicating that verse in a way he can understand is hard, and I think we would agree that it is not very relevant or effective. That is an extreme example, of course, but some churches are not far from that, and they never see any new people and they don’t grow as a result. Again, I think we need to consider our effectiveness in every step of this, but never to compromise.

If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong. We are actually very effective (I think) at moving seekers from the outside, to repentance and entrance to the family of God, to deep discipleship and growth, to ministry/leadership etc. Not all of that happens on Sunday morning, though. We have many other programs that help facilitate this growth. But to say we keep people at a certain entry level is inaccurate.


I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect. We share the Gospel regularly, nearly every Sunday. It seems like this argument is assuming a lot of things to be true that are not. Willow Creek gets a lot of flack for supposedly "watering down" the Gospel by critics who have never been to a service there. The truth is that they give a clearer and better communicated presentation of the Gospel that the majority of churches out there. You are right, the gospel is relevant to both the believer and the non-believer. That is one of the reasons we share it so often (that and the whole obedience thing).

That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you.

This is true, but we choose to take a bit of a different route. We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up. For one, we don’t see Jesus using Hell as a scare tactic to get people to follow him (the one exception is the virgins/talents/sheep and the goats stories, but it seems he was talking to his disciples, per 24:3, where his disciples come to him privately). Rather, he used love, but did not compromise his demands. We also see the disciples in the book of Acts focusing on what Jesus had done, not on Hell. The prophets in the OT are a bit of a different animal. I would argue that they were talking primarily to Jews, who were very religious already, and were just not living out what they knew, which is perhaps different than speaking to unbelievers. Nonetheless, it seems that the early church would be a better comparison to our churches today than the days of the prophets.

However, the reason I choose to share the love message before the Hell message is because I think love is a better motivator than fear. Fear comes close to coercion, whereas love is an invitation. Again, this is an opinion, and a bit off topic, but worth mentioning. This is not to say we don’t believe in Hell or that we don’t talk about it, only that we don’t use it in evangelism.

By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

Use it well and often my friend.

Thanks again J razz. I appreciate you challenging me like this. I think it helps us both.

Have a great week and I look forward to your response.

__________________________________________

j razz said...

"Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart.

It is funny that you should mention this as I wrote a paper on it back in University: Deuteronomy 23.12-13. I did go through and find application to modern day man… with that being said, I understand your point but I still think we can find intended relevance.

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

I see your point in what you are saying and I see where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree with the premise. I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son, and that salvation is a welcomed byproduct of Him seeking to glorify Himself. I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.
As it relates to them not being around long, I would respond by saying that God has made it clear He is sovereign. In light of that, if someone is to be saved they will be saved. Now, what I am not saying is that we can just all go about and never share the gospel because God will save who He wills. By no means! I am saying that God has given man a tool (the gospel) and a command (share the gospel). If we are disobedient and do not do what is commanded of us, we are in sin. If we do not use the means He ordained for us to share with man, the glory of God, through the gospel, then we sin. My point here is that we are dead in our sin… not sick, dead. We need life and without the Holy Spirit giving us a regenerated heart, we can never believe in something we don’t have the heart for. God must grant us ears to hear and a heart to believe before we can ever do either of those. We are natural enemies of God as Paul would say. If we are faithful to present the truth to them (which is our responsibility) then the Holy Spirit will not fail in His duties to bring glory to God. No means, as a means, is considered as good in itself, but only as conducible to a farther end; it is repugnant to the nature of means, as such, to be considered as good in themselves. – John Owen We cannot bring anyone to salvation. We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the unregenerate that gives them ears to hear and a regenerated heart that willingly accepts the hard truth of the gospel- we are evil and twisted and in need of a perfect redeemer who died and was buried and was raised on the third day.
So, to summarize all that (I know, I am long winded) I would say that a God-centered gospel message is more biblically aligned than a person-centered gospel message (For supporting information on the above see The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen with the introductory essay by J. I. Packer) and a person-centered gospel message tends to lean itself towards a thought of “what does this have in it for me?”

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong.

I was not insinuating that at all- just making things clear for others who may stumble upon your blog at some point in the future.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect.

Nope. Again, just making things clear for others. I do not know your church nor do I know what is taught or not taught. It would be arrogant of me to presume certain things as facts when in reality I know nothing of the matter. So, don’t take these comments as attacks against you or your church as I have nothing to attack- we are brothers in Christ and I hope that this dialogue shows how brothers in Christ are to carry on talks concerning differences. I hope that you know my character a little better than that just from reading some of my posts on Tim’s blog.

We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up.

Luke 16.14 & f.f. especially the last five verses of the chapter: "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' “But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and giving them all they need to see the truth of who He is. To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point (vs.14). I don’t think that Hell has to be used as a scare tactic, but it is reality and truth told plainly is far better than part of the story. I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die when I tumble over it than having someone to tell me to please pull over to the side of the river as there are many great things to see along the shore. What is more, I would rather be told both if both are true. If I am in eminent danger, I want to know if the Holy Spirit has enabled me to hear that message and respond to it. If not, I will find myself crashing over the waterfall doomed to my own destruction because I chose not to listen and obey. You can sink thousands of dollars into extravagant Sunday morning services and not a one will be effective unless the Holy Spirit has regenerated hearts and opened ears and the gospel is preached.

I would say that speaking the truth concerning Hell is far from a scare tactic, but it is love to the nth degree. What is more loving, to tell someone here is the blatant truth of the matter or to only focus on one aspect of it? God is both loving and wrathful. God is both merciful and judging. With building up certain aspects of God’s character to the detriment of others, we find we have a different God than the God of the Bible. God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there. He sends them there because they did not believe in His Son and did not glorify Him by believing in the gospel message. Therefore, if we only tell of the good things of believing in Christ, we do it injustice and do not portray the whole of the gospel. (just for clarification Nick, this is not a critique of your theology in that I think you are doing God an injustice by believing only in parts of His character).

Again, it has been good to dialogue with you. Have a good evening buddy. I hope you take this in the manner in which I wrote it, but in the case that you don’t, I don’t give 2 craps :)

j razz

_________________________________________

The rest of the conversation is posted in the next post to save space and to break it up a bit.

Two Common Bible Myths

Here are what I think are the two most pervasive myths when it comes to the Bible. These were first clarified for me in college. I had exposed them as myths for years, but balked a bit when I saw the first one below printed in a book recently, which led me to reexamine. Turns out, they are in fact myths.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Myth: When Jesus said this, he was referring to an actual place in Jerusalem, a gate that was very narrow, where the camel would have to take all of the stuff off its back and crawl through.

Man, I have heard this one for years. I guess it is so pervasive because it is a bit exciting to find out a cultural issue that sheds light on something Jesus said. Unfortunately, it's false.

This is the classic case of interpreting the Bible based on your current surroundings, rather than on the culture and time in which it was written. This myth dates back to 11th century France, when a monk came up with this explanation. The problem is, the gates in the 1st century in this area were big. They did not begin to build elaborate gates with small entrances until centuries later, which would have been observed by the French monk.

Myth: When the High Priest would go into the Most Holy Place in the Temple, he would have a rope tied around his waist, in case he was impure and was killed, they could pull his body out.

This, too, is a myth that dates back to Medieval times. Here is what Dr. Wave Nunnally has to say on this issue:

The earliest text in which it appears is the Zohar, a medieval mystical work that is the basis of Kabbalah. It appears in Emor section 34 (Yom Kippor), line 251, “Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there. How did they know whether he was alive or not? By a crimson colored strap. If its color did not turn white, it was known at that time that the priest was there in sin. And if he came out in peace, it was known and recognized by the crimson strap that turned white. Then there was joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and all knew that their prayer was not accepted.’” Note the modern embellishments of this text that is itself a literary fiction: rope versus chain, ankle or waist versus “feet”, no longer hearing the bells tinkle versus the changing of the color of the crimson strap.

No modern speaker accepts this narrative as true in whole, as you can clearly see in some of the weird elements that are included. (All above references come from Dr. Wave Nunnally, New Testament scholar and Jewish Backgrounds expert).

Until next time, may we eternally seek the truth!

The Shack

I read The Shack by William P. Young last week. It is a story about a man whose young daughter is killed in a shack. A few years after her death, as he is continuing to struggle with the trajedy, he gets a note in the mail he believes to be from God, asking him to meet him at the Shack. What he finds there will change him forever.

This is a great tale about God's love, justice, plan, purpose, and nature. It is a modern day parable that will encourage you and make you think, and sheds profound light on trajedy. I highly reccommend it.

If you have not heard of this book before now, you will begin to hear more in the future. The book is gaining a lot of popularity and plans are already underway to make it into a movie. Again, I highly reccommend this story to you. But, I think there are some things to keep in mind as well.

1. It is a ficticious novel. If you are like me, and heard a guy claiming that he met God in a shack, I would suspect he was crazy. This is not that, but simply a story, a parable, to help grasp some of the characteristics of God in a fresh way.

2. The author was forced to make some judgment calls on certain aspects about God in the book, things like Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Trinity, etc. It is impossible to avoid this. If you happen to disagree with his take on a certain point, it is okay. It would be very petty (though very common for some Christians) to take one aspect from the way God is prtrayed in the book that they disagree with and let that ruin the rest of the story. Don't do that! There is some great stuff in there, but it is almost impossible to agree with the author's take on everything. Maturity means being able to take the good, and leave what you might not be able to grasp.

That's all I got. Read the book. I'm sure you will be as touched by it as I was.

Is The Golden Compass Partly Right?

There has been no small deal made about the forthcoming release of the movie The Golden Compass, based on the book written by Phillip Pullman. The book as been called an atheist version of The Chronicles of Narnia. The Golden Compass book, the first in the His Dark Materials series, has an anti-Christian message, and reportedly have the lead characters trying to kill God. Pullman has apparently said himself that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" in a 2001 interview and "My books are about killing God" in 2003¹.

There has also been discussion among Christians about whether or not they should support this movie. There has been a wide range of opinion, some saying the movie is "poisoning the world" and calling for a boycott and others say that the reaction is "over nothing." Personally, I think that pop culture boycotts never work. They tend to create a buzz around the product that tends to make it more successful. In addition, I think these movies can be good conversation starters for parents to allow their kids to think through important issues. But, there is a wide range of opinion, and I am no authoritative source on this issue, but those are my personal feelings.

The reason for this article is to not debate the appropriate response by Christians. It is to ask some interesting, but maybe tough questions about the nature of the book/movie's claims.

Before I go any further, let me make it abundantly clear that I have not read any of the books or seen the movie. I am new to this topic, and have only known about this issue for a couple of weeks. My comments are based on listening to others who have read the books and can pass along information. But, at best, my knowledge of the material is second hand.

One of the characters in the book reportedly says this: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

As we react to this, I want to consider the approach of Tony Campolo in a book he wrote in the 80's called Partly Right. The book looks at some of the harshest opponents of the Church, like Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, seeks to understand their points in context, and considers how their critiques might be a valid indictment of a harsh reality. The first step, as mentioned, is to understand. He says this in his preface(pg ix):

Those who would do battle with these cultured despisers of religion should have some idea as to the nature of their arguments. Too often those of us who rant and rage from our pulpits against the materialism of Karl Marx, the sexual preoccupations of Sigmund Freud, and the God-is-dead philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche know almost nothing about these declared enemies of religion.

The second step is having the humility to listen to our opponents and using their outside eyes to try and get better.

A religious group matures and improves only by correcting its flaws, and usually the enemies of that group can help it to see those flaws better than its friends can. The enemies of middle-class religion who are reviewed in this book have provided some of the most brilliant analysis of the failures and weaknesses of our churches and our theology...I hope that by studying the arguments of our enemies we will recognize our sins, confess them, and work to cleanse ourselves of them.

Now, how can we apply that wisdom to The Golden Compass? Obviously the first step is to comment within our knowledge. It is hard to make sweeping, dogmatic statements about a book you have not read or a movie you have not seen. Sure, we can hear reports, but they are out of context. To do this may require a good deal of work. As I mentioned above, I have not read the books or seen the movie, so I have steered clear of saying things about the books that I don't know. I have kept my comments about this in the areas of the way Christians respond to issues like this, parenting, and the nature of pop culture, rather than the content of the books/movie.

The next step, then, is to ask ourselves if the accusation warrants any truth about our failures as a Church. This, too, requires work. We must think through some hard issues, be transparent, and make ourselves vulnerable. To do this is to mature, to avoid the games that the enemy, and by this I mean Satan, would have us wasting our time and energy on, and be willing to learn from a myriad of sources, to admit that others, who we may think are less holy than ourselves, actually have something to teach us.

With that, let's look at this statement made in the book: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." Please note that this is in the book. I doubt it will be in the movie. I am also not sure even which of the books in the series this appears in or what the context is. I have not done my homework to appropriately evaluate a statement like this. I do think, though, that there are some introspective questions we can ask ourselves in response, even to this isolated statement. It is certainly easy to disagree with and perhaps even get offended by. It is human nature to reactionarily defend a group that you belong to without considering the validity of the attack. But I think that is the wrong approach. Here are some questions we can ask to evaluate ourselves in response to this statement.

1. First, are we guilty of all of our churches being the same? In one sense, churches are very different. They come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. In a general sense, though, there are some threads that are perhaps too common. Almost every church service involves some combination of singing songs, a sermon, prayer, and fellowship. The prayer and fellowship almost have to be present in some form. But would it be too outside the box to explore other worship forms than music and songs? Certainly some churches are doing this, but it is a small minority. And what about sermons? It seems like we could shack things up in the way we communicate. Our imagination is the limit. It just seems like there should be as many different flavors of church as their are people, and the reality is that most churches are pretty generic.

2. Second, is the Church too hung up on controlling, destroying, and obliterating? I'll admit, that when it seems like the Church could do good by focusing on freeing, building up, and repairing, it seems to focus a lot of attention on controlling, destroying, and obliterating. Could we do a better job at this, and does your local church need to?

3. Lastly, does the Church seem to squash good feelings? Do we put the kibosh on fun? Is your local church tightly wound, or free to laugh and have a good time? What would a visitor say if asked that question about your church? I know that I have certainly been guilty of being too serious and failing to relax in the house of God. Why do we do that?

Remember, from an outsider's perspective, perception is reality. If my local church is really coming across as an organisation that controls, destroys, and obliterates good feelings, just like all the others, maybe I need to consider how we can get creative and fix our flaws, that we may be more like the body that is Christ's dream. Perhaps Pullman is partly right.

May we continue to not get defensive, but actually let criticism challenge us to learn and grow. May we look for truth in all forms, and leave or egos and self righteousness behind. And may we always be walking on the path to maturity.

Reaction to Tragedies

Tony Campolo has a reputation for, among other things, his reactions to disasters and trajedies. Naturally, whenever a trajedy happens or a natural disaster occurs, you will hear talk about "Why did God let this happen?" Campolo is right in asserting that there are some very bad answers to this question, including statements like "God is punishing America" and others. But how does he respond?

There are three examples that I will point to of reactions by Campolo about disasters. The first is from an article written in 2006 shortly after hurrican Katrina pounded the Louisianna coast. Campolo says this:

Perhaps we would do well to listen to the likes of Rabbi Harold Kushner, who contends that God is not really as powerful as we have claimed. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that God is omnipotent. Kushner points out that omnipotence is a Greek philosophical concept, but it is not in his Bible. Instead, the Hebrew Bible contends that God is mighty. That means that God is a greater force in the universe than all the other forces combined.

In scripture we get the picture of a cosmic struggle going on between the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The good news is that, in the end, God will be victorious. That is why we can sing in the Hallelujah Chorus, "the kingdoms of this world [will] become the Kingdom of our Lord."

He also says that when the hurricane hit, that God was "the first one who wept."

Campolo would also argue that saying "all suffering is part of God's plan" is also wrong. He would argue that God is not the author of evil.

This takes us to the second example of Campolo's response to another trajedy. This response comes from Campolo's podcast where he is duiscussing the Virginia Tech shootings that happened earlier this year.

I say things that get incredible uproars because people don't think, and it's as simple as this: God is not in control of everything. I know that is going to sound like heresy because we love to say in the midst of everything that's going on "Oh, God's in control, God's in control, God's in control." Well that is absolutely absurd. God did not bring about Auschwitz. God does not bring about these horrible events on this planet. They are the doings of human beings in most instances.

May I say this: It is obvious that God is not in control by God's own choice. When God created Adam and Eve he gave them freedom. Now, you can't give your children freedom and still say you're in control of them....If you're a father or a mother and you say I'm going to give my children freedom to make their own decisions. Great, but when you do that have you not relenquished control over them? Have you not said "I am not going to be in a determining position in their lives"? I'm going to let them make their own mistakes. I'm going to let them screw up their own lives if they want to. I hope they do the right thing but I've done as much for them as I can and now it's time for them to stand on their own two feet so I'm going to give them their freedom." When you give freedom, you relenquish control. God gave the human race freedom. He had power. He relenquished that power. He gave to human beings the freedom to make decisions both negative and positive.

It's important that we recognize that this is essential, because God want something special from all of us. He wants us to love him. Love cannot be coerced. Love cannot take place when you're in a controlled situation....[God says] "I'm gving to each human being the freedom to love me or to reject me."...It is a decision that is made freely without coercion from God. That means that God is not in control of everything that happens.

If god was in control of everything, everybody would be saved, everybody would be a Christian. There we be no sin in the world if God was in control of everything. God has had to give up control in order to make us into free beings; creatures who are cpable of loving him in return and loving each other in return. What we do with that freedom has been horrendous, but it has also been glorius.

The final example I will share also comes from his podcast, and it is referring to the tsunami that hit off the coasts of the Soloman Islands. Here is his response:

One of the things I say that gets me into a great deal of trouble is the fact that, Christians particularly, are not ready to face up to the fact that when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden causing the fall...that it not only effected them and the destiny of the human race, but it's quite clear from scripture that all of nature was effected....Nature is fallen. It is not the phisical world that God has inteded for it to be. That is a basic Christian doctrine. And when we talk about salvation, we are talking about salvation not only for we ourselves, if you go to the eighth chapter of Romans, go ahead and read it startng with the 17th verse, not only we ourselves need salvation, but all of creation longs for restoration, longs for being saved from its present state. The fall of humanuty in Adam brought about horrors not only for the human race, but horrors for the whole natural world, the whole physical world. and so it will be that when all of humaity is saved and redeemed upon the second coming of Christ, so will the physical universe be delieverd from its present suffering.

Okay, so there is the information, given to you in context as best I can. How do we respond to this? Some have gone as far as to boldly call Campolo a heretic for his beliefs on this issue, which I think is absolutely rediculous. I will admit if you take a statement or two out of context, like "God is not in control...", it is a bit alarming. However, I think when you see his arguement in context it is much more orthodox than we would like to think at first.

There are several levels to this issue. The second example cited above is nothing more than the age old arguement between Calvinists and Armenians concerning the sovereignty of God versus human free will. If you believe that humans have free will, then Campolo makes a great arguement in the second example that God is not in control of everything.

Where he begins to push the envelope a bit more is when he begins to talk about natural disasters (weather) and creation. I'm not sure what he would say spicifically about this, whether God can and does control weather sometimes, or whether God is not in control of weather at all. Certainly we see in scripture God controlling weather, sending rain etc., so I doubt he would say God cannot control it. Regardless, it seems clear that Campolo believes that nature is fallen and that God is not directly responsible for the evils that come from natural disasters.

Okay, now here is my question: Why is that so contraversial? And, even if you disagree, is it enough to call him a heretic? Perhaps it is simply a discomfort we feel when we hear someone say that God is not in complete control. We want to know we are safe, defended, protected. In response I would say that we are forced to accept one uncomfortable believe: either God is in complete control and cause/allows things to happen, or he is not in complete control of everything. so, again I ask 2 questions: 1) What is so wrong with what Campolo is saying?, and 2) Where do you come down on this centuries old disagreement?

Update:
Someone asked where they can find more info about this stuff. Here are a couple links.
Tony Campolo's website
The link to find Campolo's podcast and sermons