This is a season when days grow longer and attention spans grow shorter and life seems to slow down a little. Yet, God's Spirit does not go on vacation. He continues to work within us, teaching us, molding us, preparing us for a future season.
At Reading City Church, we believe this Summer is a season of growth into what church truly is. In order for this to happen, everyone needs to do the work of thinking, praying and journaling.
Specifically, we are asking you to consider this question: "What is church?" Simple enough, right? I wonder though, if the answers that come most easily and readily are shaped not by the Bible but by our cultural understanding of Christianity/Church?
Imagine for a moment that you have no idea what church is. You have never been to one. You have never heard of one. Everyone you know is unchurched. You yourself, are intrigued by the person of Jesus. You search the scriptures and as your hunger grows, you decide to become a follower and to learn what it means to be His disciple. Others begin to notice your value systems change and your passions increase and they are curious. A few actually become followers of Jesus themselves. Now, you are a group. You instinctively realize the need to function as community on mission for Jesus but you don't know how to do it. You search the scriptures again, only this time, you are taking note of every reference to church - its function, its purpose, its power, its problems.
If you only had the Bible to shape your idea of what church should be, would it look anything like church that we see most today?
The challenge before you is to read carefully through the book of Acts. Write down any insights or thoughts you may have about the overall birth and growth of the church. You may even decide to go into the some of the letters written by Paul to the churches to see more specific details about how they are to function. As hard as it may be, try and do this with fresh eyes and a clean slate of your mind.
I and the elders will be doing the same thing this Summer and will share devotions based on our thoughts and findings. But please don't depend on us to think and pray for you. You and we together ARE the church. And so, before we share, each week, we will open the mic up to you all. Feel free to come up and share any insights you may have along the way. If you cannot be with us, please feel free to reply to this post with your thoughts and they will be shared on Sunday morning as well.
Personally, I am very excited about this challenge because it was the personal challenge in part, that led to the birth of Reading City Church. If you take this challenge seriously, some comfortable assumptions may begin to unravel, some preconceived ideas of what matters, may seem far less important while others that you may have only given verbal homage to in the past, begin to come to the forefront as urgent. And there will be a gnawing sense that these ideas cannot any longer remain in the brain alone, but most have consequences in our day to day lives together as church.
What a season THAT will be.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Defining Worship (Part 2)
Recently I watched a string of tweets from spectators at a recent concert featuring Derek Webb. For those of you who don’t know who Derek Webb is, do a google search and get familiar. The singer-songwriter has been known for making waves in the Christian sub-culture with his often blunt and engaging lyrics on the church's inability to handle "uncomfortable" social and spiritual topics. Sometimes political, sometimes religious, sometimes both, Webb has been known to ruffel feathers.
So it was no surprise to hear criticism of his performance. Since I wasn’t at the concert, I don’t know everything he said or the exact songs he sang, but I do know his music and based on the criticisms, I feel I'm making a safe assumption.Normally I wouldn't have thought much about the criticisms, but these caught my attention - In regards to Webb's performance,
"it was just strange-his songs didn't glorify God, & the rest of the concert b4 & after him were worshipful. he had an agenda."So in short, he did not glorify God with his songs and in contrast to everyone else, it was not worshipful and had an agenda. For all intents and purposes, isn't even being a worship music leader all about having an agenda? When Webb did not respond to this tweet he was then called a coward by another tweeter. Strange how the Christian subculture works, huh?
Here’s the thing - if Webb (and I make the assumption he does), writes, performs, sings and speaks truth with a sincere and genuine heart lead by the Holy Spirit - then I tend to think, regardless of whether or not I agree with his stance on issues - that He is worshipping God. And if he has an agenda while performing - isn't that the point of performing? Art to the Artist is all about sharing a unique, God-given insight and perspective about life that you want others to see, appreciate, or consider. I can't help but think God smiles upon humanity sharing in that dialogue.
This leads to another issue with the criticism. When we start judging the value of art on how “worshipful” and “edifying” (terms I hear often) we feel it to be, then we aren’t even listening with worshiping hearts. Whether or not Webb’s lyrics are about abortion, poltics, and homosexuality or butterflies, flowers, and blue skies - if it challenges my Christian worldview and makes me open up the Word of God - than it’s edifying and worshipful. Whether or not I agree or find his tone offensive - to be so smug as to qualify it as good or bad based on whether or not it's worshipful or edifying is downright arrogant. The product of someone’s worship is not mine to judge, define, or quantify in value.
The same is true when we come into God’s presence through corporate song on Sunday mornings. Too often we make excuses for not wanting to turn our heart’s attention to God because of preferences, bad attitudes, and simply laziness. A lot of the reason is because we come on Sunday mornings without having taken a single second to prepare our spirit to Worship God and learn from His word. That’s the pastors’ jobs, right? Wrong.
The purpose of Sunday morning music is not to prepare or soften your heart to hear God’s word during the Sermon. That’d be what we call: manipulation. The purpose of Sunday morning music is to glorify God together as a body. The purpose of the Sunday morning sermon is not to be your Sunday devotion. It is to teach, challenge, guide, and edify the body of Christ together as one local body.
My challenge to you - Throw out your expectations and preferences, stop your waiting, and enough with the spiritual arrogance. It’s time to worship in the Spirit and in truth. That's who the Father is calling us to be and that's the kind of worshiper He desires. Take the time to prepare yourself to worship Him. The more time you take to prepare and train, the more equipped you will be when the world around you is crumbling.
Prepare your hearts to enter into his throne room.
Prepare your spirit to turn it’s affections to God.
Prepare yourselves to worship.
Prepare ye the way for the Lord.
Prepare ye the way for the Kingdom.
- Dan Smith -
dan@readingcitychurch.com
dan@thesmithfactory.com
Friday, May 13, 2011
Defining Worship (Part 1)
What is worship?
Let that question linger a bit. No really. A looooooong bit. It’s a biggie.
Thought about it? Have an answer? Throw it out.
Posing this question has two problems:
1.) It is based on an assumption.
2.) It is the wrong question.
First let’s look at these two problems, then let’s redefine the topic.
As a “worship” leader I have confronted this question at a multitude of times and in a plethora of arenas. Based on my last blog for RCC, “Language Matters”, I made the case that we do the boundless term, “worship”, an extreme disservice in the context of contemporary Christian artistic expression. When a boundless word becomes a label to define a specific action, it is wrapped in chains. Worship is no more than a song like I am no more than a husband. While being a husband carries a lot of meaning and weight in my life, it does not define my entire being. I consist of many other attributes, character traits, and titles that make up all of who I am. In the same way, music is a form of artistic expression, a tool used by Christians to worship and glorify God. However, it does not sum up the entirety that is “worship”. Worship, in a conventional sense, is not so much a noun or adjective - (i.e. - “Sunday Morning Worship”, “Worship Music”) as it is a verb - (i.e. “I worship God through...”). The assumption behind the question is using "worship" as a noun.
Second problem is that it is the wrong question to pose. Based on problem one, we can better understand problem two. If worship is not a noun or an adjective, then we can’t define it as such. So instead of “What is worship?”, why not “What does it mean to worship?” or better yet, “what do I worship?” - personally answering this question might lead you to answering the first.
Let’s take a look at scripture to get an idea of what it means to worship and be a worshipper.
The clearest glimpse we get on worship is in John 4 where Jesus is speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well. Remember at this time, the Jews worshipped only in Jerusalem while Samaritans worshiped on Mount Gerizem - known as the mount of blessing where the blessings of God were read from its slopes. Jews worshipped in Jerusalem because to them, that was where God was. Samaritans worshiped on the mountain because that’s where they believed God was. Notice that both worshiped where they thought God’s presence to be.
The woman pins Jesus to a question - “where should we worship?” Locked in Jesus’ answer is the key to our answer. Jesus response was less about where, and more about how. He says, “A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know; for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth.” Notice it says “In the Spirit and in truth” NOT “In the Spirit and in THE truth” - subtle but semantically important difference.
Jesus answers a question about where we should worship by talking about how we should worship. Awesome. I love it. I wish I would’ve answered questions in HS like this. Jesus basically says that a time is coming and has now come where the “where” DOES NOT MATTER so much as the “how”. He says “for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks” - those who worship in the Spirit and in truth.
Let’s expound this.
So what does he mean by “...in the Spirit”? He means in the Holy Spirit - the vehicle through which our communication to God is possible - available after Jesus’ death when the veil was torn in the temple in Jerusalem. When we open our lives to the reality of the omnipresence of God’s spirit - we tap into a connection like none other and worship is possible in any place at any time.
And what about the “...in truth” part? This is about the sincerity of heart - the honest posture of our heart’s affections and admiration. The Father doesn’t want a half-hearted, dried up, smoldering passion for His glory - He wants a furnace of sincere affection lighting the world on fire.
Wow.
Do you worship like that?
and I don’t just mean on Sunday mornings when the band’s playing.
I mean, like every day, every minute, every second that you breathe.
Are you connected to His Spirit? Is your heart’s posture positioning you to burn with genuine affection for His glory?
-Dan Smith-
Let that question linger a bit. No really. A looooooong bit. It’s a biggie.
Thought about it? Have an answer? Throw it out.
Posing this question has two problems:
1.) It is based on an assumption.
2.) It is the wrong question.
First let’s look at these two problems, then let’s redefine the topic.
As a “worship” leader I have confronted this question at a multitude of times and in a plethora of arenas. Based on my last blog for RCC, “Language Matters”, I made the case that we do the boundless term, “worship”, an extreme disservice in the context of contemporary Christian artistic expression. When a boundless word becomes a label to define a specific action, it is wrapped in chains. Worship is no more than a song like I am no more than a husband. While being a husband carries a lot of meaning and weight in my life, it does not define my entire being. I consist of many other attributes, character traits, and titles that make up all of who I am. In the same way, music is a form of artistic expression, a tool used by Christians to worship and glorify God. However, it does not sum up the entirety that is “worship”. Worship, in a conventional sense, is not so much a noun or adjective - (i.e. - “Sunday Morning Worship”, “Worship Music”) as it is a verb - (i.e. “I worship God through...”). The assumption behind the question is using "worship" as a noun.
Second problem is that it is the wrong question to pose. Based on problem one, we can better understand problem two. If worship is not a noun or an adjective, then we can’t define it as such. So instead of “What is worship?”, why not “What does it mean to worship?” or better yet, “what do I worship?” - personally answering this question might lead you to answering the first.
Let’s take a look at scripture to get an idea of what it means to worship and be a worshipper.
The clearest glimpse we get on worship is in John 4 where Jesus is speaking with the Samaritan woman at the well. Remember at this time, the Jews worshipped only in Jerusalem while Samaritans worshiped on Mount Gerizem - known as the mount of blessing where the blessings of God were read from its slopes. Jews worshipped in Jerusalem because to them, that was where God was. Samaritans worshiped on the mountain because that’s where they believed God was. Notice that both worshiped where they thought God’s presence to be.
The woman pins Jesus to a question - “where should we worship?” Locked in Jesus’ answer is the key to our answer. Jesus response was less about where, and more about how. He says, “A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know; for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth.” Notice it says “In the Spirit and in truth” NOT “In the Spirit and in THE truth” - subtle but semantically important difference.
Jesus answers a question about where we should worship by talking about how we should worship. Awesome. I love it. I wish I would’ve answered questions in HS like this. Jesus basically says that a time is coming and has now come where the “where” DOES NOT MATTER so much as the “how”. He says “for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks” - those who worship in the Spirit and in truth.
Let’s expound this.
So what does he mean by “...in the Spirit”? He means in the Holy Spirit - the vehicle through which our communication to God is possible - available after Jesus’ death when the veil was torn in the temple in Jerusalem. When we open our lives to the reality of the omnipresence of God’s spirit - we tap into a connection like none other and worship is possible in any place at any time.
And what about the “...in truth” part? This is about the sincerity of heart - the honest posture of our heart’s affections and admiration. The Father doesn’t want a half-hearted, dried up, smoldering passion for His glory - He wants a furnace of sincere affection lighting the world on fire.
Wow.
Do you worship like that?
and I don’t just mean on Sunday mornings when the band’s playing.
I mean, like every day, every minute, every second that you breathe.
Are you connected to His Spirit? Is your heart’s posture positioning you to burn with genuine affection for His glory?
-Dan Smith-
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Thoughts about "Love Wins" Part 2
The disagreements that I have about the Rob Bell's new book are not minor. They are major. Would I therefore advise others to not read the book? No way. The reasons why I would never discourage people from reading a book like this will be the subject of this second post.
First though, I have to comment on why I am asking the question. Before the book was released, there were a number of tweets, blogs and magazine articles that were dismissive, of not just the book, but of Rob Bell as a person. When the book was released, many people's suspicions were confirmed. At least one report surfaced of a pastor loosing his position, in part, because of his support of Bell's writing. Many other churches have strongly discouraged staff from quoting anything from the new book or saying anything positive about it in tweets and facebook statuses. It's because of these reactions and others to the book, that I ask the question this post answers.
Why I would never discourage others from reading this book:
1). I have no right to tell you what to think.
I can tell you what I believe scripture teaches in my best understanding of it. But only you can decide what to do with that. The point of having a brain is to think. But to think takes work and most of us don't want to do this so we formulate our opinions from fragments of other people's reactionary rants. This is potentially hazardous to our spiritual (& intellectual) development. I listed the problems that I had with the book in my first post. Please, do not take my conclusions or anyone's conclusions as yours, unless after your own study, reflection and prayer, you land at the same places.
2. Informed Dialogue is crucial to discovering truth.
One of the many quotes I agree with from the book is in the preface in which Bell writes about "...the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. It's a deep, wide, diverse stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives and experiences." You do not have to scratch deep to see the truth in this statement. Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Anabaptist and other forms of Christian belief have major, not minor differences on Hell, Salvation, Tribulation and our life in this world. Yet, today, can a member of the Baptists simply dismiss a member of Assemblies of God or can an Assembly of God member dismiss a Catholic brother or sister? Sadly, this has been done throughout church history but at what price to the body of Christ and His purposes on this earth?
There is not one group that can say they alone understand the full truth of the scriptures. On this side of eternity, we know only in part (1 Co 13:12). As evidenced by the plethora of different doctrines in churches that we consider today to be Christian, there is much in the Bible that is simply not as crystal clear as the dogma would have us to believe. What has been most beneficial through the ages to our theology is open conversation and debate about those areas that are not crystal clear.
Sadly, we have crossed a line somewhere in which the conversation itself is discouraged. When did a nod concerning one thought or an idea of a person become synonymous with agreement on all things that a person stands for? Really? When did this happen? Do not pastors quote St. Francis of Assisi, St. Augustine, Martin Luther or Charles Finney, just to name a few? Are they aware of their thoughts on hell or heaven or salvation? I submit to you that many of those that are considered to now be the most influential in church history had some very heretical ideas. Yet today, they are quoted from the pulpits while staff members get fired for quoting Bell. "Love Wins" hopefully causes people to get back into their Bibles, study it for themselves and talk about it with others and this is valuable. We used to have the ability to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Now leaders think it is their responsibility to put their hands in the mouths of those they are to serve and pull out the bones because the person eating is incapable to telling the difference between the two.
3. There is subtle danger of "knowing" we are right.
As I said in #1, my job as a pastor is, in part, to tell you what I believe the scriptures teach. In one sense, it is not a matter of ME being right at all but rather striving to make sure I get the scriptures right. I am not God's lawyer and I do not need to defend Him (what a terrible job I would do at that anyway). I am not insecure by Bell's writings. It is not my ways or my truth that is being considered and questioned but Gods. When we remove our ego and insecurity and need to always be right out of the equation, we can more easily make it about God and have an honest struggle through sections of His word.
In our reactionary age, I see this happening less and less. In its stead, I see entire movements of Christianity springing up which are closed to any discussion beyond what they consider to be THE RIGHT interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, by the way, that they have arrived at by 2000 years of other people's discussions.
There is an incredibly judgmental and divisive spirit in the church today. Self-proclaimed janitors who believe they are sent to clean up theology's messes in a way that can easily damage the purposes of God for His body. They do not understand that the manner in which they try to stay true to the Bible ignores huge chunks of the Bible that speak of how we are to interact with one another and so, they invalidate their scriptural integrity.
A key element for theological discussions to be healthy and beneficial is humility and speech seasoned with grace. Those who already "know" have nothing else to learn. And this is sad because a disciple of Jesus never arrives but is always the pupil.
In addition to these points, as I have stated in my previous post, there are sections of the book that I whole heartily agree with. I think Bell gets some thing really wrong in my understanding of what the scripture teaches. There are some things that he gets right. Probably just like you and me.
"...knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know." - 1 Co 8:1-2
First though, I have to comment on why I am asking the question. Before the book was released, there were a number of tweets, blogs and magazine articles that were dismissive, of not just the book, but of Rob Bell as a person. When the book was released, many people's suspicions were confirmed. At least one report surfaced of a pastor loosing his position, in part, because of his support of Bell's writing. Many other churches have strongly discouraged staff from quoting anything from the new book or saying anything positive about it in tweets and facebook statuses. It's because of these reactions and others to the book, that I ask the question this post answers.
Why I would never discourage others from reading this book:
1). I have no right to tell you what to think.
I can tell you what I believe scripture teaches in my best understanding of it. But only you can decide what to do with that. The point of having a brain is to think. But to think takes work and most of us don't want to do this so we formulate our opinions from fragments of other people's reactionary rants. This is potentially hazardous to our spiritual (& intellectual) development. I listed the problems that I had with the book in my first post. Please, do not take my conclusions or anyone's conclusions as yours, unless after your own study, reflection and prayer, you land at the same places.
2. Informed Dialogue is crucial to discovering truth.
One of the many quotes I agree with from the book is in the preface in which Bell writes about "...the beauty of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. It's a deep, wide, diverse stream that's been flowing for thousands of years, carrying a staggering variety of voices, perspectives and experiences." You do not have to scratch deep to see the truth in this statement. Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholicism, Pentecostalism, Anabaptist and other forms of Christian belief have major, not minor differences on Hell, Salvation, Tribulation and our life in this world. Yet, today, can a member of the Baptists simply dismiss a member of Assemblies of God or can an Assembly of God member dismiss a Catholic brother or sister? Sadly, this has been done throughout church history but at what price to the body of Christ and His purposes on this earth?
There is not one group that can say they alone understand the full truth of the scriptures. On this side of eternity, we know only in part (1 Co 13:12). As evidenced by the plethora of different doctrines in churches that we consider today to be Christian, there is much in the Bible that is simply not as crystal clear as the dogma would have us to believe. What has been most beneficial through the ages to our theology is open conversation and debate about those areas that are not crystal clear.
Sadly, we have crossed a line somewhere in which the conversation itself is discouraged. When did a nod concerning one thought or an idea of a person become synonymous with agreement on all things that a person stands for? Really? When did this happen? Do not pastors quote St. Francis of Assisi, St. Augustine, Martin Luther or Charles Finney, just to name a few? Are they aware of their thoughts on hell or heaven or salvation? I submit to you that many of those that are considered to now be the most influential in church history had some very heretical ideas. Yet today, they are quoted from the pulpits while staff members get fired for quoting Bell. "Love Wins" hopefully causes people to get back into their Bibles, study it for themselves and talk about it with others and this is valuable. We used to have the ability to chew the meat and spit out the bones. Now leaders think it is their responsibility to put their hands in the mouths of those they are to serve and pull out the bones because the person eating is incapable to telling the difference between the two.
3. There is subtle danger of "knowing" we are right.
As I said in #1, my job as a pastor is, in part, to tell you what I believe the scriptures teach. In one sense, it is not a matter of ME being right at all but rather striving to make sure I get the scriptures right. I am not God's lawyer and I do not need to defend Him (what a terrible job I would do at that anyway). I am not insecure by Bell's writings. It is not my ways or my truth that is being considered and questioned but Gods. When we remove our ego and insecurity and need to always be right out of the equation, we can more easily make it about God and have an honest struggle through sections of His word.
In our reactionary age, I see this happening less and less. In its stead, I see entire movements of Christianity springing up which are closed to any discussion beyond what they consider to be THE RIGHT interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, by the way, that they have arrived at by 2000 years of other people's discussions.
There is an incredibly judgmental and divisive spirit in the church today. Self-proclaimed janitors who believe they are sent to clean up theology's messes in a way that can easily damage the purposes of God for His body. They do not understand that the manner in which they try to stay true to the Bible ignores huge chunks of the Bible that speak of how we are to interact with one another and so, they invalidate their scriptural integrity.
A key element for theological discussions to be healthy and beneficial is humility and speech seasoned with grace. Those who already "know" have nothing else to learn. And this is sad because a disciple of Jesus never arrives but is always the pupil.
In addition to these points, as I have stated in my previous post, there are sections of the book that I whole heartily agree with. I think Bell gets some thing really wrong in my understanding of what the scripture teaches. There are some things that he gets right. Probably just like you and me.
"...knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know." - 1 Co 8:1-2
Monday, April 4, 2011
Thoughts about "Love Wins" Part 1
This is the first of two posts about Rob Bell's controversial new book, "Love Wins." I read the book with pen in hand and my Bible next to me. While I typically mark up books that read with comments, rendering many in library unlendable, my copy of the book is truly beyond hope. I am thankful that Bell wastes so much page space when he writes because I used most of it with my own thoughts. Rather than relate every thing I agreed with or disagreed with, I am simply giving two posts about thoughts that I am left with as a result of the book. If you, the reader, have specific questions about particular parts of the book, please feel free to post a response and I will share from my thoughts and writings, if in fact, I had any concerning the section in question. For what it's worth, although I am well aware of the many criticisms that exist, I have read little of the responses concerning Rob Bell or this book in particular. These thoughts are my own and not influenced by any "expert" telling me what I should think.
For this first post, I am stating simply the five big disagreements I had with the book, ignoring the temptation to give specifics because this would turn into a very long series of posts if I did so. Again, if you would like particulars of why I state what I state, don't hesitate to respond.
My big 5, in order of what I consider to be most important are:
1. The book as a whole seems to ignore the Holiness of God. The most powerful spiritual reforms that happened among the people of God in our history and throughout the Bible, have come through man's awakening to all that God truly is, which is at once beautiful and terrifying, causing man to immediately sense the weight of his sin and desperate need for God's grace and power. "God is love" is true but this is not the same as saying love is God. Love can be defined by God but God cannot be solely defined by love, at least not our human understanding of the word. Ultimately, it is not love that wins but God. He is the point. We are not. According to the scriptures, His thoughts and ways of God are not like our thoughts and ways. It is futile to explain all of life away as being "safe" and submerged in our understanding of what love is or should be. For anyone who has suffered in this life, that does not even ring true. The scriptures actually speak of God using evil for his purposes time and time again. There is far more to "love" than our safety and exaltation of the free will.
2. The book can easily leave the reader with an impression that it is never to late to repent & turn to Christ. One can possibly do so even after death. I have done my own in-depth study on heaven and hell and it is true that much of the Evangelical teachings on these subjects lacks the mystery and purposeful vagueness that the scriptures leave us with. Some teachings of scripture that were written as liquid and were debated for centuries, have become, during the modern era - concrete. I do not think we do God any favors when we declare with absolute certainty what is not absolutely certain in scripture. However, how Bell arrives at the possibility that man can turn to Christ after death scripturally, seems weak at best. To leave people with such an assumption based on an unstable foundation is dangerous and even careless.
3. "Love Wins" paints a picture of hell that is far closer to the teachings of purgatory, than a place that exist forever. If forever does not mean forever, as Bell suggest, then neither does the love of God endure forever as the Hebrews wrote in praise to God, but it lasts instead for a season. And this one thought just scratches the surface of the problems his interpretation suggests concerning "forever."
4. Although Bell alludes to the exclusive nature of the gospel on one hand, he mostly negates the thought with the idea that all people will be reconciled to Christ, regardless of what religion they follow or whether of not they call on the name of Christ. Much of the scripture that is used to build this idea is taken out of context, in many cases, ignoring the very next verse. It is true that Christ has opened the way to all people, but to suggest that this way is so wide all will go in it, no matter what direction they are headed, ignores too many teachings in the Old and New Testaments.
5. Beyond his premise that "love wins" Bell does not seem to have any firm footing in the end on much of anything. The book raises questions that go unanswered. I love good questions and personally believe the tension that exist in deep questions is where we often find God because in those time, we cannot lean on our own intellect. I am also in agreement with recapturing the mystery of God and the scripture, as our boxes have been way to small. Yet, there are some mysteries that we must now proclaim (Col 1:25-28/4:3-4). When Bell attempts to answer some questions raised in the book, he seems to contradict those answers in other sections, making him appear to be double-minded.
Now, before you peg me as being totally against Rob Bell or even this book, you will need to read my next post, which I feel is more important than this one.
For this first post, I am stating simply the five big disagreements I had with the book, ignoring the temptation to give specifics because this would turn into a very long series of posts if I did so. Again, if you would like particulars of why I state what I state, don't hesitate to respond.
My big 5, in order of what I consider to be most important are:
1. The book as a whole seems to ignore the Holiness of God. The most powerful spiritual reforms that happened among the people of God in our history and throughout the Bible, have come through man's awakening to all that God truly is, which is at once beautiful and terrifying, causing man to immediately sense the weight of his sin and desperate need for God's grace and power. "God is love" is true but this is not the same as saying love is God. Love can be defined by God but God cannot be solely defined by love, at least not our human understanding of the word. Ultimately, it is not love that wins but God. He is the point. We are not. According to the scriptures, His thoughts and ways of God are not like our thoughts and ways. It is futile to explain all of life away as being "safe" and submerged in our understanding of what love is or should be. For anyone who has suffered in this life, that does not even ring true. The scriptures actually speak of God using evil for his purposes time and time again. There is far more to "love" than our safety and exaltation of the free will.
2. The book can easily leave the reader with an impression that it is never to late to repent & turn to Christ. One can possibly do so even after death. I have done my own in-depth study on heaven and hell and it is true that much of the Evangelical teachings on these subjects lacks the mystery and purposeful vagueness that the scriptures leave us with. Some teachings of scripture that were written as liquid and were debated for centuries, have become, during the modern era - concrete. I do not think we do God any favors when we declare with absolute certainty what is not absolutely certain in scripture. However, how Bell arrives at the possibility that man can turn to Christ after death scripturally, seems weak at best. To leave people with such an assumption based on an unstable foundation is dangerous and even careless.
3. "Love Wins" paints a picture of hell that is far closer to the teachings of purgatory, than a place that exist forever. If forever does not mean forever, as Bell suggest, then neither does the love of God endure forever as the Hebrews wrote in praise to God, but it lasts instead for a season. And this one thought just scratches the surface of the problems his interpretation suggests concerning "forever."
4. Although Bell alludes to the exclusive nature of the gospel on one hand, he mostly negates the thought with the idea that all people will be reconciled to Christ, regardless of what religion they follow or whether of not they call on the name of Christ. Much of the scripture that is used to build this idea is taken out of context, in many cases, ignoring the very next verse. It is true that Christ has opened the way to all people, but to suggest that this way is so wide all will go in it, no matter what direction they are headed, ignores too many teachings in the Old and New Testaments.
5. Beyond his premise that "love wins" Bell does not seem to have any firm footing in the end on much of anything. The book raises questions that go unanswered. I love good questions and personally believe the tension that exist in deep questions is where we often find God because in those time, we cannot lean on our own intellect. I am also in agreement with recapturing the mystery of God and the scripture, as our boxes have been way to small. Yet, there are some mysteries that we must now proclaim (Col 1:25-28/4:3-4). When Bell attempts to answer some questions raised in the book, he seems to contradict those answers in other sections, making him appear to be double-minded.
Now, before you peg me as being totally against Rob Bell or even this book, you will need to read my next post, which I feel is more important than this one.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
This is personal...
Recently, an older well-known writer/preacher posted a dismissive tweet about a younger well-known writer/preacher whose new book is about to released. Inherit in the twitter statement was a unfavorable judgement and conclusion about the author although the poster has not read the book yet. A fire storm of criticism followed suite about the author of the new book from other Biblically conservative authors and bloggers.
I have pre-ordered the book myself and for the Elders at RCC and we will be reading and discussing it. We are considering taking a Sunday to talk about the issues raised in the book and some of the surrounding controversy.
I will say here, having read some of the criticized author's other books, in my understanding of scripture, he gets some things wrong, he also gets some things right. Either way, he is not my God. Nor does any one person represent the thoughts I should think about God. Anyone who really reads Martin Luther, Calvin, CS Lewis, Charles Finney or even understands some of the prominent thinking in the days of the early church, understands - there are many varied theological thoughts and ideas that were held by some of the most influential molders of modern Christian thought. We are in danger when we elevate any one thinker as always being right.
To be clear, I believe scripture is divinely inspired, God-breathed living word that is always true. Just like the perfect law was applied to an imperfect people (Romans 7), the perfect word of God cannot be fully understood by any one, very imperfect person at least not until the end of all things (1 Co 13:10-12). Anyone who sets themselves up as having THEE understanding of scripture is in danger of becoming a cult leader. This is why we need the larger Jesus-following community.
Christianity has way too many weak-minded reactionary people that are just waiting for their leaders to tell them what to think. It has been this way since the early stages of the church, as written by Paul to a church in the city of Corinth:
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? -1 Corinthians
The point, is never man. The point is always Jesus. Now, if the criticized author is off, then it needs to stated. But to dismiss and call names as I have been reading, seems just as damaging to the body of Christ and the purposes of His Kingdom as what they are accusing him of.
As I have been thinking through some of these things, I felt my finger point right back at me. How many times have I been careless with my language? How many times have I been divisive? This is personal.
I am a potentially deadly combination of a "D" personality mixed with a prophetic and discerning gifting which basically means I see things in the world-wide church that make me feel indignant and I if I don't say something about it, I will explode. At least that is what I feel like. The problem is, this causes me to react without being dependent on God's timing and grace. If I am not careful, I can do damage quickly to His larger body. In trying to make strong points and to draw clear distinctions, I have probably said more than I needed. Some of that is probably even evident in some posts on this blog.
In reality, some of what I have been reading about the current issues is a painful reminder about my own tendencies. I desire to not be a person who most easily produces a critical, condemning, or complaining spirit and accusations. I truly desire to be known for a spirit of graciousness, generosity & gratefulness. I am earnestly learning the ways of humility.
I am who I am for a reason. Where truth is clear, it should be clearly proclaimed. Yet, as with everything in life, there is balance that must be struck. I am getting a taste that this balance comes as we let go of who we are, die to self, and decrease so that He can increase through us.
I have pre-ordered the book myself and for the Elders at RCC and we will be reading and discussing it. We are considering taking a Sunday to talk about the issues raised in the book and some of the surrounding controversy.
I will say here, having read some of the criticized author's other books, in my understanding of scripture, he gets some things wrong, he also gets some things right. Either way, he is not my God. Nor does any one person represent the thoughts I should think about God. Anyone who really reads Martin Luther, Calvin, CS Lewis, Charles Finney or even understands some of the prominent thinking in the days of the early church, understands - there are many varied theological thoughts and ideas that were held by some of the most influential molders of modern Christian thought. We are in danger when we elevate any one thinker as always being right.
To be clear, I believe scripture is divinely inspired, God-breathed living word that is always true. Just like the perfect law was applied to an imperfect people (Romans 7), the perfect word of God cannot be fully understood by any one, very imperfect person at least not until the end of all things (1 Co 13:10-12). Anyone who sets themselves up as having THEE understanding of scripture is in danger of becoming a cult leader. This is why we need the larger Jesus-following community.
Christianity has way too many weak-minded reactionary people that are just waiting for their leaders to tell them what to think. It has been this way since the early stages of the church, as written by Paul to a church in the city of Corinth:
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? -1 Corinthians
The point, is never man. The point is always Jesus. Now, if the criticized author is off, then it needs to stated. But to dismiss and call names as I have been reading, seems just as damaging to the body of Christ and the purposes of His Kingdom as what they are accusing him of.
As I have been thinking through some of these things, I felt my finger point right back at me. How many times have I been careless with my language? How many times have I been divisive? This is personal.
I am a potentially deadly combination of a "D" personality mixed with a prophetic and discerning gifting which basically means I see things in the world-wide church that make me feel indignant and I if I don't say something about it, I will explode. At least that is what I feel like. The problem is, this causes me to react without being dependent on God's timing and grace. If I am not careful, I can do damage quickly to His larger body. In trying to make strong points and to draw clear distinctions, I have probably said more than I needed. Some of that is probably even evident in some posts on this blog.
In reality, some of what I have been reading about the current issues is a painful reminder about my own tendencies. I desire to not be a person who most easily produces a critical, condemning, or complaining spirit and accusations. I truly desire to be known for a spirit of graciousness, generosity & gratefulness. I am earnestly learning the ways of humility.
I am who I am for a reason. Where truth is clear, it should be clearly proclaimed. Yet, as with everything in life, there is balance that must be struck. I am getting a taste that this balance comes as we let go of who we are, die to self, and decrease so that He can increase through us.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)