Posted on 03/24/2008 4:09:15 PM PDT by Terriergal
Let me rephrase that- the Bible has lot to say about being the church, but not running a church.
Theologically, Mark Driscoll IS much different. He just needs to clean up his potty mouth and stop going for the shock factor so much.
Re-read Ezekiel and get back to me on "potty mouth" and "shock factor." Or St. Paul in Galatians 5 ("castrate themselves") or Philippians 3:8 (skubala, the profane term for fecal matter is used).
The gospel is shocking and counter-cultural to the religious as much as the non-religious.
I have read Ezekiel and Paul’s words. This does not excuse Mark Driscoll talking about people thinking Mary was knocking boots with a Roman soldier in the back seat of a car. Scripture indicates we are to guard our tongue and to not allow profane language to pass through our lips. Driscoll needs to clean up his mouth, period.
I don't much else about Rob Bell other than his dvd series NOOMA, but having listened to several of the NOOMA dvd’s with Rob Bell, I would say he’z a Christian. He mentions Jesus constantly. He references New and Old Testament scripture time and again.
His points are highlighting what God is saying to His people in a way maybe the younger generation can hold on to.
Is it for everyone? No. Was the NOOMA series anti-christian, new age or mysticism? That wasn't my take on it.
Cyrano is slogging through velvet elvis right now. It’s atrocious, some of the stuff he’s been reading aloud to me.
“jesus believes in you” that’s nonsense! Jesus doesn’t BELIEVE anything. He KNOWS all.
He commands us to believe because we DON’T know all.
It’s so man centered it’s hard to know where to begin, plus he incorporates universalism and eastern mysticism, both corruptions of the gospel. I guess salt water and fresh water CAN come from the same spring? Jesus was wrong then.
Hey, so does Fred Phelps and his little girl Shirley.
Actually, I think Jesus does believe in us, after all we are His bride, and He sees a spotless virtuous maiden. If He sees us like that and not the way we act, I’d say that’s some pretty awesome faith.
Now for the eastern mysticism and universalism, please show me where that is. I’m usually sensitive to that heresy,because I was a new-ager before I got saved, but I didn’t pick up on it in Velvet Elvis- but I would sincerely like to know where it is.
Maybe I didn’t notice it because I’m used to spitting out the false garbage in every book I read that isn’t the Bible-(yes, even John MacArthur’s bilge) so I don’t tend to hold any author to a high standard of perfection.
Ezekiel doesn’t use toilet slang. He may use brutal sarcasm but he does it in a decidedly proper way.
I have listened to Mark’s eisegesis on ‘scatological humor’ and don’t find anything scriptural in it.
Yeah he sees a spotless virtuous maiden, that’s why he voluntarily died to pay for her iniquity.
Yeah. That's why he describes Israel as a whore who spreads her legs for every passer-by. Ezekiel 22 would be unprintable on this board.
Hello, it’s PAID. Past tense. The finished work, remember?
Nevermind, I can see you’re a guilty type of Christian. We aren’t going to agree here.
As someone who's reading through Velvet Elvis now, I'll take a shot at listing what I've seen. It'll be a little stream of consciousness, because I haven't gotten through the whole book yet. And I won't reference Bell's NOOMA stuff, because though I haven't been impressed by what I've seen thus far, I haven't seen enough to speak on it.
Fundamentally, I think the problem with Bell is that he'll say things that sound profound, and could be true and defensible, but that are so vague or contradictory or absent of definition that they actually could mean anything (I'd say "koan-like" but it'd beg the question). And his own applications of those sayings don't seem orthodox.
(This actually leads to another issue I have with Bell: his fondness for equivocation. In "Bricks" he talks about questioning teachings of Christianity, and how we shouldn't be afraid to do it. I would agree that everyone has a theological grid of beliefs, and one should be open to beings shown by Scripture that the grid is wrong in some part. That's basic hermeneutics. But Bell's hypothetical example goes beyond interpretation; it would contradict the inerrancy of Scripture. And while Bell may believe that doesn't matter to the "way of Jesus," Paul seemed pretty convinced that it did in 1 Cor 15. Christianity is based on historical events; if those are false, then there is no Christianity, and frankly you'd be better off with the Tao Te Ching; it'd be more consistent.)
It may not be what you're looking for--not too specific to new-age stuff, but it's what I've seen, and I think there are definitely echoes of eastern and universalist teachings in it.
Okay, I see what you’re saying. I think you’re reaching a bit here and there, though.
I read it about six months ago, and I borrowed it, so I can’t reference anything directly now.
But as for your first point- does he actually say that the Gospel ‘has nothing to do with sin, judgment, grace, salvation through Christ’s sacrifice’? Or does he simply talk about living a Christian lifestyle in terms of ‘being generous, compassionate, peaceful, etc.’ As you said, there’s nothing uniquely Christian about them, but if one’s intent is to demionstrate the love of God by doing such things, I have no problem. In fact, there are an awful lot of Christians who think that saying the right words is enough, while they neglect such obligations. Talk is cheap.
Point 2- I actually think the rhema is in fact more important than the logos, in terms of our daily life with God. Now, if we don’t know the written Word of God, we’re just being irresponsible since it’s so easily available to us. But communication with the Lord on a moment to moment basis is how our faith is built and sustained. Example- when Paul was planting churches, those believers had no Bible. They had very limied access to a Torah, if they were Jewish. Gentiles had no previous knowledge of Abraham, Moses, David, etc. All they had was the Holy Spirit, each other, and Paul himself and other workers on a limited basis. So God effected the beginnings of the church not on a daily experience with the logos, but rather the rhema.
I think point three is just an extreme example, to the level of absurdity, to make a point. After all, what do we do if it’s proven that the earth is more than 6000 years old? Abandon our faith? Not a chance.
Anyway, I’m not defending Rob Bell, I don’t know the guy, I wouldn’t attend his church, and I only ever read one book by him. I guess I just get tired of religious Christians overreacting to every guy who talks about God and isn’t from Dallas Theological Seminary.
>>I would say he’z a Christian. He mentions Jesus constantly. He references New and Old Testament scripture time and again.
Hey, so does Fred Phelps and his little girl Shirley.”
Honestly, have you ever listened to the NOOMA series?
If you have, and you still come away saying this is not a scripturally based, Jesus centered series then you must have a very different definition of Christianity.
Believe me, Cyrano is not prone to ‘reaching.’ It’s like living with Mr Spock. (not Doctor benjamin Spock)
does he actually say that the Gospel ‘has nothing to do with sin, judgment, grace, salvation through Christ’s sacrifice’?
No, he doesn't, but that wasn't what I claimed he was saying. Bell completely avoids any talk about the Law or Gospel entirely, speaking only of some nebulous "way that Jesus taught," which essentially works out to be the Golden Rule.
I would agree that Christians should display in their lives fruits like what Bell lists. But without a clear articulation of the whole Gospel (which would include sin and judgement on sinners) putting the "way" that Bell discusses in the proper context, one is left only with another legalistic social gospel call empty of any message able to call men to salvation.
I must be too tired, because your logos/rhema paragraph sounded exactly backwords, according to my understanding of the terms. My point in bringing up the idea was that any application of Scripture must come out of the meaning and historical context of the text. Emphasizing the subjective experience and application of the individual is the first step down a dangerous road whose ills have infected so much of Christianity the last century. And BTW, I'd say using phrases like "the Bible is alive" is the next step down that road...
guess I just get tired of religious Christians overreacting to every guy who talks about God and isn’t from Dallas Theological Seminary.
I wasn't implying you defended Bell; I just looked to answer a question. Having said that, I would mention that in order to user the term "overreact", one must have been able to articulate what is being said and demonstrate there is no concern at that level. Your own description of the book and your knowledge of it don't seem to meet the burden of proof that would allow you to start throwing around terms like "over-react".../p>
lol I hate that! Happens to me too.
Bell completely avoids any talk about the Law or Gospel entirely, speaking only of some nebulous "way that Jesus taught," which essentially works out to be the Golden Rule.
I guess the question is, what was he writing about? A theological treatise on the mechanics of how salvation works, or something else? Basically, I think the golden rule is actually what the book boils down to, now that you mention it.
I would agree that Christians should display in their lives fruits like what Bell lists. But without a clear articulation of the whole Gospel (which would include sin and judgement on sinners) putting the "way" that Bell discusses in the proper context, one is left only with another legalistic social gospel call empty of any message able to call men to salvation.
Again, why is it a requirement that he have an Finney-style evangelistic message in his book? Doesn't seem to be an evangelistic effort, in the traditional sense anyway. I got the sense that it was more a book for the church, but I can see how his approach would be attractive to someone searching for authenticity.
I must be too tired, because your logos/rhema paragraph sounded exactly backwords, according to my understanding of the terms.
logos- primarily the written word, among other permutations of the terms- also, Jesus is referred to as the Logos- meaning the whole counsel of God, the complete expression of His Father.
rhema- the spoken word- the 'right here and now' communication of the Holy Spirit to us.
My point in bringing up the idea was that any application of Scripture must come out of the meaning and historical context of the text.
First of all, whose 'meaning and historical context'? The Merrill/Tenney/White Bible Almnac, Rob Bell's rabbinical emphasis, Catholic tradition, Coptic tradition, Syrian/Aramaic? We have a bad habit of interpreting an eternal and infinite Logos within our comfort zones.
Emphasizing the subjective experience and application of the individual is the first step down a dangerous road whose ills have infected so much of Christianity the last century. And BTW, I'd say using phrases like "the Bible is alive" is the next step down that road.
1> Do you trust the Holy Spirit to keep those that are His? 2> The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. The Pharisees knew the objective Word very well- but they missed the subjective encounter with God Himself. How many ills have infected Christianity based on an undue despising of the Holy Spirit and His work?
I wasn't implying you defended Bell; I just looked to answer a question. Having said that, I would mention that in order to user the term "overreact", one must have been able to articulate what is being said and demonstrate there is no concern at that level. Your own description of the book and your knowledge of it don't seem to meet the burden of proof that would allow you to start throwing around terms like "over-react".
That was mainly directed at the panicked attitude infusing posts like this. "Oooh, a threat to the faith! Rob Bell doesn't hang out with Chuck Swindol!" And the ignorance and overreaction of some of the responses every time something like this is posted, it's frankly embarrassing. I just pray that unsaved lurkers aren't reading it.
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
I think point three is just an extreme example, to the level of absurdity, to make a point. After all, what do we do if it’s proven that the earth is more than 6000 years old? Abandon our faith? Not a chance.
That was his entry point into that section, yes. But even granting that he's trying to use hyperbole, Bell's example actually proves the opposite point, I think. In trying to show that there are things that are not essential to Christianity, even though some think they are, he actually shows that there are things that are essential, even if people think they are not. I've already said it, but his example of the Virgin Birth being disproven has enormous repercussions. Not just to that doctrine, but to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Essentially, he's saying that Mt 1:23 is lying, because the Greek word parthenos is far more explicitly referring to a virgin than the Hebrew word 'almah in Is 7:14 that it is referencing.
Bell is basically saying, "If we couldn't trust the words of Scripture, could we still be Christians?" And then he's answering in the affirmative.
I wouldn't quibble on his answer to that question. However, his scenario creates a far more important question: If we couldn't trust the words of Scripture, is Christianity still true?" And the answer to that question, at least according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (among other places) is an emphatic "No!"
If Bell, Doug Pagitt, or any of the other current Emergent luminaries want to create a religion that embraces subjective experience and social interaction as the core determiners of truth (or "more true-ishness" or whatever), they are welcome to do so. When they claim that religion is one with historic Christianity, however, I will not accept their equivocation of terms.
Christianity is about Truth. Jesus the Truth, the Word is Truth, God the same yesterday, today, and forever (i.e. eternal consistency, which would have to be Truth). If all that is a lie, then I'd want nothing to do with any way that Jesus taught, because it would be founded upon a lie.
Okay, off the soapbox for a bit...
Basically, I think the golden rule is actually what the book boils down to, now that you mention it.
And my concern with that is that the way the book is structured, the golden rule is presented as a core tenet of Christianity, the "way that Jesus taught," when it is actually a result of living out one's salvation. Bell puts the cart before the horse, but more tragically, doesn't even acknowledge the horse's existence.
Again, why is it a requirement that he have an Finney-style evangelistic message in his book? Doesn't seem to be an evangelistic effort, in the traditional sense anyway. I got the sense that it was more a book for the church
heheh. I won't digress, but believe me: I am not arguing for a Finney-style evangelistic message.
Velvet Elvis may be a book for the church; if so, I wish it had been more clearly indicated at such. But even in that case, I would argue for the need of a clear articulation of the Gospel. Because that is the foundation of the faith! If that is absent (as it seems to be in my reading thus far), the reader is left with two choices. First, to "fill in the blanks" and assume that Bell would agree (which I would consider very poor teaching methodology, and thus the book is open to criticism.) Second, to assume that Bell does believe that fundamentally, Christianity is a religion of behavior, i.e. works (in which case, Bell is teaching counter to core Christian doctrine and should be confronted).
The Pharisees knew the objective Word very well- but they missed the subjective encounter with God Himself
See, I have trouble with this sort of language. It sounds good, even profound, but it is too vague. Salvation (i.e. believing in the Messiah) is subjective in that it happens to an individual, yes. But it is not subjective in the sense that it carries a different meaning or has a different focus or result for each person.
The Pharisees did not have hearts that were cleansed and turned toward God. Their religion was nothing more than a set of rules interpreting OT law (and BTW, Jesus didn't seem to have an issue with what they interpreted; His problem was that they "neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." (Mt 23:23 NASB)
And essentially, that is my concern with VE as well. If salvation is nothing more than obedience to a set of rules (whether they are strict behavioral guidelines of the Pharisees or the more nebulous golden rule), then VE is just a touchy-feely form of legalism. And while legalism can make a clean, polite society, it cannot save. And any attempt to discuss "the way that Jesus taught" that omits salvation is not the gospel.
This turned out much longer than I'd anticipated. Sorry about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.