Unfortunately this post has fallen under the Emergent vs Non. Emergent topic although Rob Bell has never stated himself to be Emergent.
Instead of replying to a conversation I'm having with "Anonymous" over my post called "Silent Revolution". I thought I'd bring the conversation to the top of the page for communal discussion.
Dear Anonymous,
You have raised many excellent questions, and as I have time I will attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible. The 4th question is in my opinion the easiest to address.
Your 4th question was
4) What does Rob Bell really believe about Scripture, Salvation, philosophy of ministry?
In Response -
I realize you have some preconcieved ideas about Rob Bell, I'm assuming you think he has a secret agenda or that he's a false prophet (this taken from your use of the word really).
Matthew 7:15 - 23 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.
Please click on this link to Rob Bell's churches weekly church bulletin, and then honestly answer the question below.
http://www.marshill.org/weekly/weekly.pdf
Sound Tree or Bad Tree? Bad Fruit or Good Fruit?
By the way I'm all for discerning popular Christian trends. The Bad Fruit Good Fruit question has always helped me biblically discern the work of the Spirit. And I believe we should be constantly examining the fruit production of everybody, including ourselves.
7 comments:
Greg,
unfortunately, you failed to answer the question at hand.
You showed me a list of things that Rob Bell and his church are doing. While this is impressive, it ultimately means nothing. There are many people in this world that are doing things both in the name of Jesus and without it. This does not make you a Christian or mean that you are doing what God has commanded us to do.
You jumped to a few conclusions here though that I think are necessarry to address:
1) You assumed that I have "preconceived ideas about Rob Bell."
Unfortunately, the "ideas" I have about Rob Bell stem from both my prior use of some of his material and also from some researching into what he believes and things he has stated.
2) You stated that I "think he has a secret agenda."
I do not believe he has a secret agenda (although he may), I am not the judge of his heart. I believe that he thinks he is doing what God really wants and calls for, I just think he is wrong on some of the big things. This is, by the way, the case for most individuals and movements who propagate false ideas and religions.
3) You assumed that I believe he is a "false prophet."
See above. Again, I think he means well but has some very wrong and detrimental views about the Christian faith.
So, now that we have that cleared up, lets move on to some more important and biblical insights.
Let me first say that the article you wrote on the emergent/non-emergent issue was very telling. with all due respect you need to do some more research about these things. Also, without even realizing it you actually sided with the emergent camp. And yes, they are two very distinct camps, that I want to make very clear. As believers, we need not band together with those who have distorted the gospel, attacked and defamed the Word of God, and hold a universal view of salvation that allows any and everyone into the Kingdom. Greg, we must be discerning about what we are buying into.
There are times to draw lines... this is one of them. Post-modernism is essentially another name or extension from neo-orthodoxy. While Rob Bell is definately of the more conservative side of the post-modern movement, he is still very much in line with their ideologies and methods of adapting to the culture to be more "relevant."
I don't have much time to get into the nitty gritty details of Rob Bell and his ministry but I would suggest that you read some of his critics and rethink your position (or lack thereof) on the emergent/not-emergent debate. This is a serious issue, one that as believers we should not shy away from in an attempt to unify the "body of Christ" in a way that is not glorifying to God. We do not compromise the truth for the sake of unity. 1 John talks all about the moral and doctrinal issues that must be synergistic.
We cant just say that someone has good fruit because they have good moral credentials. We must also look to what they believe and preach scripturally. They are intertwined and inseperable.
Those who claim to be Christians must absolutely display the characteristics of genuine Christians: Sound doctrine, obedience, and love.
For there to be unity, truth must first exist. This so called "hermeneutic of humility" will not lead down a path to truth. Discernment only exists with a firm foundation built on the eternal word of God.
We need to put down the books and run back to the book. Let's pour through the Bible so that we will not "be tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ..." Eph. 4:14-15.
Lets get back to question # 4. What does he BELIEVE about the Bible, Salvation, Hell, philosophy of ministry... Check this site out and tell me what you think...
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/08/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
Well Greg, I hesitate in telling you who I am only because I do not want that to influence you negatively in regards to what I am saying. But, you made a valid point in one of your previous posts that has convicted me...we are brothers in Christ and I care deeply about you and about the truth. I am confident that I lived my life in front of you in a way that has been honouring to God and hope that it maybe positively influence your thoughts of what I have said, my apologies for hesitation.
sincerly,
Ian Hales
Hey Ian,
Well I'm really glad to know who "annoynmous" was. I want to first let you know that I am very thankfull for your encouragment, your heart for truth and your concern for me individually and as a friend. Knowing it's you, inflences your words for me in a positive way. I want you to know I do understand where your coming from. I've read the book, the books, and many online discussions. I understand I the problems with Postmodernity, being culturally relevant, watering down the gospel, or preaching a completly different gospel. The problem is, it's all really messy.
Everybody has a slightly different twist, I'm not Emergent, you can call me whatever, but I'm not. And the whole two camp thing, isn't this your perspective? People like Rob Bell and Donald Miller have never claimed to be Emergents. Brian Macleran shouts his mouth off sometimes and believes some really brutal stuff, (he's far too liberal) But John Macarther isn't perfect either (far too conservative) and extreme on many things. It's all about balance. Now I realize that you probally don't agree with me, and that's fine. I'm explaining to you, so that you understand I'm not a heretic, I'm a guy seeking to follow Jesus, and be His hands and feet to a broken world. I enjoy discussing biblical truths and how they play out in the world, but my greatest joy and calling is living out the change that Jesus makes in me daily to those around me. Regular Non-Christians go about their daily lives in desperate need of hope, and of the good news of restoration. They could care less about the stuff we discuss, they just need to meet Jesus.
So yes I may have gotten off topic, but the point I was trying to make is this. We agree on much more than we disagree (but we have to allow each other some interpretational differences, as humans I am not infallible, I make mistakes, I understand the Holy Spirit helps me discern truth, but I'm not perfect in my daily life, how do I know I'm perfect at interpreting the Bible, with each new discussion and personal time of prayer and the reading of God's word I know God continues to clarify the truth of his word, but how can we be arogant on everything? Overconfidence like this reminds me of the Levites and Priets and the Pharasies who were so confident, yet had it all wrong). Ian, I realize you probably just had twenty verses come to your head which you can prove me wrong with, I'd love to hear them. I enjoy discussing, but I'm not one for attacking (I never said you did, I just don't want to go there).
You brother in Christ,
By the way, how's California? Are you returning home soon, How's Sarah?
Later Bro,
Greg
I wanted to rephrase/clarify my statement about interpreting the Bible, which I stated above. I do believe the Bible is very clear for the most part. I favor a conservative literal reading of the Bible. I don't believe God intended us to be fuzzy or confused about His Word. I believe it's God-breathed, useful for teaching... Sharper than a double edged... and my basis for understanding and living out my relationship with God, made possible via Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Hey Greg it's Ian,
I don't have much time here but lets dig a little deeper if we can.
First, you said: "People like Rob Bell and Donald Miller have never claimed to be Emergents."
Frankly, it's not what we claim that necessarily makes us what we are... It's what we do, say and believe. Just because these guys don't out right claim to be in this camp doesn't mean they are not, and they have both directly and indirectly associated themselves with the emergent movement and with MacLaren (at least Don Miller has).
You said... "John Macarther isn't perfect either (far too conservative) and extreme on many things. It's all about balance."
Now, I wasn't going to bring up John MacArthur, but since you did, lets discuss this comment. I am curious about him being "far to conservative." If you don't mind, I would love for you to define that for me. See, I find that people think they know what he preaches and believes when they really don't. So, how is he to conservative? What does he say that you disagree with? I think if you answer these questions it will begin to generate some very good biblical conversations.
You said..."It's all about balance."
Sorry Greg, It's all about being Biblical. What the word of God says is what we are called to.
You said..."Regular Non-Christians go about their daily lives in desperate need of hope, and of the good news of restoration. They could care less about the stuff we discuss, they just need to meet Jesus."
This kind of thinking is good Greg but parts of it are untrue. The problem is that while they may care less about the stuff we discuss, if we do not figure out these differences we will be unable to confidently and accurately focus on making everyman complete in Christ. That's not even to mention the fact that what we, in many respects are debating between these two camps directly relates to and changes the gospel message, the focus of our Christian life, the source of our Christian life and the perspicuity of scripture.
And no, it is not my perspective that we are in two different camps, unfortunately (and why I make a big deal about it) it is the Bible's perspective. Anyone or anything that attacks God's word ultimately attack Him. They have attacked God's word... how can we take this lightly Greg? How can we align ourselves with this?
you said... "Overconfidence like this reminds me of the Levites and Priets and the Pharasies who were so confident, yet had it all wrong)."
Well Greg, I don't really know what to say. The Scripture is clear on the confidence that we have not only in Christ but in the word of God. There is a large differencer in the "overconfidence" of the pharasies and the confidence of Paul, Peter, James, John... all the Apostles. We can discuss this another time, but the bottom line is that we must be confidant if we are to command and preach as Paul tells timothy. If you are not confident in what you believe, I suggest you dig deep until you are. Humility does not mean we have no confidence in the word, it means we trust that it has all the power and authority and we have none. That doesn't change the way we present this truth. You need to think about how the Bible tells us to present this truth, trust me it's there.
Greg, I know we agree on a lot, but you need to start nailing down your doctrine. It will be the foundation for your future ministry and for your daily walk with Christ. You need to know what you believe and why you believe it.
So, get back to me on how MacArthur is too conservative, I am interested in hearing your opinion, lets try to keep this as Biblical as possible and stay away from personal opinions.
Ian
Hey Ian,
Okay so where to begin.. Recently I've spent a lot of time studying what Macarthur has to say. (I've listened sermons, and read through Pulpit Magazine's articles about the emerging church/cannonical etc., and yes I've even spent much time on Titus, 2 Timothy, and Jude).
I thank you for your encouragment for me to keep "nailing" down my doctrine. And that is exactly what I have been doing, I believe that is exactly what all believers need to continually be doing (2 Tim 2:14-16 which says "do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth") I'm doing my best, I'm working at it, I'm embracing the Spirit's work in my life. 1 Timothy 4:15 says "watch your life and doctrine closely. Persever in them, because if you do , you will save both yourself and your hearers"
Anytime God's Word is miscongrued, or it's truth is abandoned, this is wrong and I agree that we are responsible to uphold the truth. 1 Titus 1:13 "rebuke them sharply so that they will be sound in the faith"
I guess my frustration is this. You say I have aligned myself with "them". I'm not convinced we can categorize "them" as cleanly as we would like. I follow Christ, I align my life with His Word, I pray daily that God would keep me true to His Word, that I might preach in truth and spirit the good news. It is our role to "rebuke" but I don't agree it is our role to make "them" and "us". In Titus Paul is speaking to Titus specifically about a group of "rebellious people" decieving & seeking dishonest gain.
There isn't an organized group of "emergants" intentionally decieving people and seeking dishonest gain. There are however people who have abandoned God's word and it's truth, and as we come across these individuals we should illuminate them to God's truth. (BUT! We must first remove the plank, before we remove the speck Matthew 7). My point is we need to be careful with blanket statments, we don't know the hearts of every individual, however like Paul say's we have the mind of Christ, we should use it.
Yes we have confidence (not a Spirit of Timidity, Timothy), but it needs balance, we are to be humble as well. We need to have a teachable heart like the Samaratian woman from John 4 at the well as opposed to an arrogant heart like Nicodemus from John 3.
Finally regarding my comment about Macarthur at times being too conservative. I actually feel that much of his exegeis is acurate, however there's times when I think he pushes too far.
In reading through his blog one of his comments was "Paul deliberately refused to customize his message or adjust his delivery to suit the Corinthians’ philosophical bent or their cultural tastes.
He goes off on a rant about how preachers today just ramble and don't preach the Word. I agree this is often true. However I don't exactly agree that Paul didn't adjust his delivery to make the gospel more understandable for his hearers. In Acts 17:22-24 Paul speaks to the Athens by first identifying with there world then preaching the gospel. He quoted their poets in verse 28. Thus my preaching style differs somewhat from Marcarthurs in that I feel it is important to engage the culture around me and it's failings so that I can present the gospel.
Another area that I feel Marcarthur has treaded too confidently or pushed too conservatively would be his view of the ceasing of tounges. Now I'm working through my understanding of this, it seems to me that the "tongues" of 1 Corinthians are different then the tounges of Acts Pentecost. No interpreter was needed for the Pentecost tongues. I never have spoke in tongues, I don't the gift, but I'm not confident that it doesn't exist. Millions of God fearing, Holy Spirit filled Christians speak in tongues, are they all misguided? I do however agree that the tonuges of fire have ceased, (from the Pentecost account).
Before I finish I want to say that I am not gifted as a "debater". I enjoy discussing with you. May we continue to "persevere in the truth" and "do our best". May we grant each other grace in the process.
Let us not allow Satan to create dissention within the body, breaking the unity of believers and causing a blow to God's work.
In Christ.
Greg
Hey Greg,
I'm glad to hear of all the reading and studying you've been doing, you're right, this is something that all Christians must continually be doing.
I understand you're frustration with being labled as an emergent, it is not my goal to "label" you as such but merely to point out that you have adopted some of their misguided (but i'm sure well intentioned) ideologies and methodologies that flow from poor exegesis.
I guess my frustration is this, their methods and parts of their message are unbiblical. Now understand my heart, I say that statement humbly but firmly and confidently. You're right by the way, it is difficult to categorize this movement. That's the problem with a movement that tries to tailor itself to the culture, it has to continually morph so that it remains "culturally relevant" to each and every generation. Unfortunately this has never been the biblical method and there is a reason for that. Also, the emergent movement prefers that you cannot label or classify them. It is an attempt to be illusive and untouchable. This is why I have spent most of my time challenging the individuals in this movement. Because they don't all necessarily believe the same things across the board you must look at each individual to get specific. However, as I think you would agree, they have many things in common with each other. So, we must be careful when making blanket statements but that doesn't mean some don't apply. I don't pretend to know the hearts of the individuals, that is not what I am attempting to argue. My point is that we must evaluate the message and the methods, God will judge the heart but He has given us the answers to both the message and the method.
This is just a side note: I don't believe that Nicodemus approached Jesus arrogantly. Everything in the passage points to just the opposite. If you would like me to elaborate let me know in your next post and I would be glad to.
Now lets look at Paul's experience in Athens. By the way as you might have guessed, I agree with MacArthur on this point. This is by far the most misunderstood and misquoted passage of scripture that people and movements use to justify their unbiblical methods of presenting the gospel.
Paul walks into Athens by himself and is surrounded by a culture full of idols. The text says his spirit was provoked. The greek word for provoked here is paroxuno which means, "intense agitation." So, Paul is intensly agitated and sadended because he see's these people giving stone idols glory that only God deserves.
So what does Paul do? The exact same thing that he does everywhere he goes. He was "reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present (vs. 17)." Notice his approach... It was direct, confrontative, bold evangelism. Notice also what he was preaching, Verse 18 tells us he was preaching the gospel -classic Paul. Paul wasn't afraid of proclaiming the truth. It didn't matter that he was alone and among the intellectual elite of his day, he believed he was unleashing the power of God by proclaiming Christ.
What was the response to Paul's preaching? Were they impressed with his relevance and rhetoric skills? Apparently not. Verse 18 says they referred to Him as and "idol babbler." In the greek this term is spermologos which literally means "seed-picker." It was a mockery of Paul and his message. It referred to birds that pick seeds out of gutters. Although some mocked him many were intrigued by his "strange doctrines." So, they took him off to the Areopagus.
Ok, I want to point one thing to you in this next section Greg; Paul was polite but confrontive. There is a legitimate sense in which Paul matched his style to the people he was trying to win, MacArthur agrees with this. He spoke to them with great respect for their positions. He was courteous and friendly. Notice however, that he got right to the point. He points out that they are religious than boldly proclaims that he is going to explain this God to them, "Therefore what you worsip in ignorance, this I proclaim to you (vs. 23)." He didn't soften the message nor was he worried about stepping on their toes. He just layed it out there for them boldly. This would have been as counter-cultural then as it is today. They likely would have been shocked by his bold assertion and approach. He spoke authoritatively and powerfully, the same that he would have everywhere else. You can read for yourself the message that he preached there.
So what about this poet that he quoted, doesn't that show that Paul adapted to suit his culture?
Paul was making a defense for the faith. You could paraphrase it like this, "even your poets with no true knowledge of God gave a testimony to the fact that there must be one sovereign ruler and creator over all things." Paul was simply saying that their God's didn't fit that description but his did. He was simply underscoring what Romans 1:19-20 says. It's so obvious that even pagan poets can understand this truth, but come to the wrong god(s).
Paul wasn't trying to earn their respect or impress them with his intellect or personality. His sole aim was to secure their attention for what he was about to hit them with.
Because this post is getting long, I will try to be concise with my next few points.
Paul utterly destroys their religious system and beliefs (vs. 29). He boldy tells them if I may paraphrase, "You are wrong and you must repent." Doesn't sound like a tailored message to win friendship does it? He apparently didn't even get to the name of Christ. He started talking about the resurrection of the dead and they began to sneer at him and mocking him. Some left and some stayed. This is the way it always was and still is.
So, we can say that although Paul adjusted his style in speaking, he never adapted his message. And, just because his speaking style was different, the overal method and approach was the same. Unfortunately, people today are using this messge to defend thier adapting both message and methodology. I believe I have clearly showed how this is incorrect.
Let me challenge you some more. Read through 1 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2 and notice the method and message there.
We, like Paul, must allow the power of the gospel to speak for itself.
I guess we'll have to deal with tongues in another post, I'm out of breath.
In love
Ian
Hey Greg,
I just wanted to touch really briefly on the tongues comment. You asked if I am saying that millions of bible believing and God fearing Christians who speak in tongues are wrong.
There are millions of premillenialists, millions of Aamillenialists and millions of postmillenialists who are God fearing and bible believing Christians. Does that mean they are all right? Of course not. These views are all contradictory and therefore cannot all be right. We can't believe something to be right just because millions of people believe it...that's pragmatism. We must diligently mine the depths of scripture to see what it means by what it says. My position on tongues (cessationist) as well as the other sign gifts, was formulated from researching both sides of the argument and weighing the biblical evidence. John MacArthur is by no means the only one holding to this view, infact it was the dominant view of the church up til the early 1900's. I suggest you get his commentary on 1 Corinthians, he has a great explanation of this view. Other than that there are many others who have written on the topic.
Godbless, hope all went well for you and Julie this past weekend, I was praying for you both.
Ian
Post a Comment