The Dangers of the "In-or-Out" Way of Thinking

This is one of my posts from the Recalibration blog. You can see the original post here, and you can check out Recalibration here.

I got into a “Facebook argument” recently. This is something I tend to avoid (simply because social networking sites on the Internet are not the place to look for a decent intellectual discussion), however the person sent me a private message regarding their concern. The message was to say that they were worried about the things I show on my Facebook page. This is not what you might think; apparently they were concerned that I posted a link to an article by a Roman Catholic priest, and that I ‘liked’ the Pope and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. They were certainly gentle in the message, however they were simply unconvincing. This post, though, is not to serve the purpose of bashing this person at all, nor is it to prove that I’m “right” and they’re “wrong”. This is simply to discuss my viewpoint on the entire unfortunate “Protestant or Catholic” situation.

My response to the message can be summed up like this:

1) I have to discern truth and sound doctrine for myself (and even for those who look to me for guidance in the Word), however I have no place to say who’s “in” or who’s “out” in regards to the Church.

2) Your place in the Kingdom is not determined by how solid every last piece of your theology may be. Is there “false doctrine” in the Roman Catholic Church? Sure. But is there “false doctrine” lurking in every corner of my life? To borrow a phrase, “you betcha”. This is not to say that I don’t try to spend every single moment of my life chasing after and trying to understand God. But I’m not ready to attack another person’s theology and tell them they aren’t a part of God’s Kingdom because they’re wrong on some issue (even on some pretty important stuff).

3) So are Catholics and Protestants brothers and sisters in Christ? Yep. There definitely are those who fake their way through the Church for their own reasons, but that’s in every body of believers. Christ had this to say about the situation in Matthew 13:

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13.24-30 ESV)

Please know this: I am not arguing for Theological Agnosticism, Relativism, or Skepticism. There are absolute truths we can know about God, things we can learn first and foremost by reading the Scriptures. This is rather an argument against what is essentially Gnosticism, the idea that you are saved through having the right knowledge of God, knowing the right things.

The Christian life is about abiding in Christ. It is a life of love and grace, a life of knowing the Father through the Holy Spirit. We ought to read the Scriptures to abide in and to know God, not simply to be “right” about the things of God.

(One last thing: one of my favorite writers right now is Thomas Merton, who was a Catholic Trappist monk and became a priest in 1949. Merton unfortunately died in 1968, but his work will have a lasting impact on my life.)

Philippians 2.5-8

The following is the script I wrote and used for a five-minute devotional thought at Metro South Church on Sunday April 3, 2011. My actual presentation was nowhere near word-for-word. There were two services, and unfortunately I was only confident in my sharing the second time around (that's what nerves do to you, I guess). Comments, criticisms, and trolling are greatly appreciated.
-
God has consistently been dragging me back to this scripture lately. It’s in Philippians 2:


In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross! Philippians 2.5-8 NIV

I have been meditating lately on what Jesus Christ suffered in order to save us. He, who is the eternally-existent perfect Son of God, stepped from the highest position in the universe to the lowest position possible. He created everything and he has all authority over creation, but in obedience to the Father, he was born into the lowest station, and lived the life of a servant. He voluntarily put himself into our situation, taking on our weakness and frailty,in order to push us up out of our mess. He came and served to the point of giving his life for us. Here Paul, the writer of Philippians, makes the point that not only was Christ obedient to the point of death; he suffered death on a cross, the worst kind of death. In ancient Rome, this was a death that was reserved for the lowest of lows (it was really only used for slaves or enemies of the state) because it was the most shameful and disgraceful way to die. The condemned was beaten, stripped naked, ridiculed, and taken outside of the city to signify that he was unwanted garbage. It was so slow that the crucified sometimes took days to die. It was such a humiliating practice that many sought to have it banned. Cicero, the Roman philosopher, said “the very mention of the cross should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, his eyes, his ears”. He’s saying that crucifixion is so bad, even though it was hardly ever used for Roman citizens, a Roman should never have to see, hear, or even think about death on a cross. So Christ went from glory, not just to a life of servant-hood, but was put to shame, suffered such a humiliating, brutal death in order to save us while we were still enemies of God. His life of service and suffering, the birth, life, and death of Jesus, is what theologians call the humiliation of Christ.

But we always talk about these things, and I even find myself growing cold to these concepts sometimes. But this is something God keeps impressing on me. Paul, here in Philippians, is telling us to “have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” in our relationships. This is the question that God has been pressing into me lately: how willing am I to be humiliated, like Christ was humiliated, to glorify God and to save others? I think about all the times I passed on helping somebody in need simply because it was awkward, uncomfortable, or inconvenient for me. As a follower of Jesus, I ought to have the same attitude, the same mindset as Christ. This means living a life centered on humility. One of the ways God has been showing this to me is in what Paul (again) says in Romans 12.15, “Rejoice with those who rejoice, mourn with those who mourn”. I ought to never see myself above taking on anybody’s situation. In a practical sense, this means I celebrate with that friend who got the job or promotion that I deserved, or I invite that neighbor of mine over for dinner even though I am 98% certain that it’s his dog that keeps pooping on my grass; it means I ought to weep with somebody else, taking on their grief; it means letting God break my heart for all of the poverty and injustice in our world, or sharing in the suffering of disaster victims and doing everything God enables me to help lift them out of their situation. It means speaking life into circumstances that bear nothing but death and despair. It means God wants me to live like Christ, who made himself nothing so that the Father would be glorified through our salvation.

Franklin Graham and Barack Obama

Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, apparently decided to share his opinion of President Barack Obama last Sunday (Easter Sunday). Through this, he expressed concern regarding Obama's birth-certificate.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said this of the situation: "I think it's unfortunate that a religious leader would choose Easter Sunday to make preposterous charges". I agree with the White House here, as all it really feels like is an unfortunate rallying of support for the GOP. I personally don't care about the birth-certificate turmoil, but if a highly visible evangelical leader wants to express concern regarding this issue, they ought to find the right time and place for these things.

Graham also questioned Obama's legitimacy as a Christian, saying "...he has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian? For him, going to church means he's a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior."

Franklin Graham said this on August 19, 2010 about the President: "Now it's obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed and he has renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That's what he says he has done, I cannot say that he hasn't. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said." While I feel that the Gospel is too often used as a political tool by politicians, I'm not sure why Graham feels he needs to pander to anybody in politics, but it definitely seems like that's what he does. Jesus followers ought to focus more on the things of God than earthly politics which are all too petty in the perspective of the kingdom of Heaven.

Philosopher and Pastor John Piippo has a great post here concerning Obama's faith.

My Reflections on Love Wins (feel free to disagree)

EDIT (7/24/2012): This review is not an entirely accurate reflection of my sentiments regarding Bell's book, orthodoxy, and biblical interpretation but I am keeping it on here for the sake of transparency (or something). It may be an accurate reflection of how I felt about Love Wins at the time of its release, but there's no way to know for sure.

The following was imported from a Wordpress blog of which I am a contributor. It was originally posted March 23, 2011. Feel free to comment! Visit the original post here, and check out the Recalibration blog ("Christian perspectives on life, culture, and spirituality").

Rob Bell.

The name on everyone's lips, apparently. So many things have already been written about his latest book Love Wins that one more post just feels like spitting in the ocean. Because of this, I will not even try to assess everything in this book. There are so many reviews out there (both positive and negative). For a very well-written response (with which you may or may not agree), check out Kevin DeYoung's review. And for a defense of Love Wins, I recommend checking out Mars Hill's Love Wins FAQ.

So why add to the pile of blogs out there concerning Love Wins? Well, I pre-ordered the book and received it when it was released (which I'm glad I did considering it

is
was sold out everywhere), and wanted to mull it over before jumping online with my personal opinions. This is not a comprehensive review, as stated above, but rather my reflections on the good, the bad, and the ugly this book contains. I will try to hit the big points, then leave the details for another time.

First, the book is short. The page count (200) is deceiving as Bell (per his style) makes very liberal use of

large fonts.

and wide margins.

and skipping lines after three words.

Stylistic concerns aside (I’m glad I only paid $11 for this book!), there are a lot of bigger things happening in Bell’s writing.

So let’s start with questions, like Rob seemingly loves to do:

Is Rob Bell a heretic? Not really, but he rides the very thin line of heterodoxy.

Is he a Universalist? Not in the traditional sense, but he seems to depart from Scriptural truth far too often to mention.

Is he still a Christian? Absolutely. Nothing expressed in this book hasn't been said by anyone else.
-
I really wanted to objectively like this book. Bell may not be my favorite, but it is well written (in the sense that it uses very accessible language) and Eugene H. Peterson endorsed it. On that note, let's get to talking about some theology.

First, the good:

Chapter 2 (called Here is the New There) was my absolute favorite chapter of the book. It is about Heaven, and the fact that Heaven is not only real, it is at hand. Therefore, we ought to live bringing the Kingdom to earth. We know that we cannot make creation new on our own, however we ought to live for that day.  Fans of N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope will find nothing new here, and I wasn't surprised to see Bell cite that work. Not too much to dislike here.

Next, he even emphasizes repentance (something that is surprising to see in the work of a major emergent-church leader). Not too much more to say about this point. And finally, he entire book culminates in an open invitation to follow Christ into a wild, scary, wonderful, beautiful, abundant life.  This is my favorite theme in the book; Bell paints Christ with a big brush as a loving, magnificent God.

Next, the bad:

Rob Bell is an excellent communicator, and as others have expressed, everything he says is to communicate an idea, whether it is a statement or a question. Also, Bell has been through seminary. And so, he cannot be excused for some of the major mishaps with Scripture he has in this book. I'm not going into details, but just as an example, I would point anyone to chapter 1, called What About the Flat Tire?, where Rob asks some questions (all of which he leaves unanswered) about scriptures pertaining to salvation. One huge lapse, which unfortunately feels deceptive considering Bell's background in the Word, is when he quotes 1 Timothy 2 and asks if childbearing really saves women, never explaining what the passage is actually saying. And, again, this is just an example to point out a problem. Mishandling the bible is as big of a concern as any that I have (1) because of my love for the Word of God, and (2) because of the centrality of Scripture to the faith.

Bell's problem, I think, is that he has a way of stretching figurative language in the bible to absurd literalisms, and shrinking things  that are intended to convey very very real ideas down to metaphor. More on the latter in a bit.

The biggest thing on people's minds are his ideas of Hell. Bell believes Hell is real, but he doesn't believe in eternal damnation to Hell. This is where Bell says he is still within traditional orthodoxy, a claim he hardly supports properly. (As soon as I'm done with this post, however, I am going to be writing a new one based on the idea of why I wish Rob Bell was right about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of everyone who ever lived.) There are plenty of strong rebuttals out there concerning this issue, so I'm not even interested in taking it on (again, spitting in the ocean). I would recommend the above link to Kevin DeYoung's response, but I will end this part with a quote from this post (called Rob Bell &... Purgatory?) by John Piippo (pastor of Redeemer Fellowship Church in Monroe), which I recommend reading if you're looking for a good, non-aggressive evaluation of Bell's idea of Hell. "Rob often does a good job of going to the actual biblical texts. I don't think he can strongly support the idea of a kind of purgatorial state in the afterlife. I think he takes the awesome truth of God as Love and works too hard to logically extend this into an orthodoxy that is, textually, way too generous."

At last, the ugly:

I hope you're still with me.

First, "toxic" is not a good word to use to describe other believers. Bell puts this word to use when talking about those he disagrees with. The kind of attacking language Bell uses when talking about other Jesus-followers in Love Wins is often unsettling; Christ died for the Church, so we ought to love the whole church. Bell makes the claim to just be opening up dialogue about God, however this type of language does not ring of somebody who simply wants to learn more about God through dialogue.

Let's be clear: the hateful sentiment behind Westboro Baptist Church's message is indeed toxic. Christians who believe in a place called Hell that contains the souls of all who reject God's offer of salvation (because that's what the Scriptures say) should be labeled misguided at worst by Bell if he truly thinks they're wrong.

Next, Bell tends to make truth claims without properly supporting them throughout the entire book; he defends these claims with premises made up of pure speculative language (uses the word may A LOT).

My biggest concern in Love Wins, though, doesn't even arise out of Rob's view of Hell. This may be due to the fact that I already knew how he felt about Hell, or it may be that this next idea is an even bigger problem. My biggest criticism comes from some writing buried in Chapter 6 (called There are Rocks Everywhere) and deals with the issue of atonement. 1 John 2.2 says "He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Rob Bell makes the case that Christ's death was not really a sacrifice for our sins, but that it was God's sign declaring the end of sacrifice, that he wasn't even angry in the first place. He says the early church calling Christ's death the propitiation for our sins was simply figurative language (a problem I expressed above). Bell, for some reason, leaves out the justice of God, the justification of the saints through Christ's blood, and the fact that God himself said in Leviticus "the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life", and Hebrews (pointing to Leviticus) says "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins".

In the end, Bell sets up orthodoxy to fail by redefining terms to fit his argument, and using questions that are, according to Bell, unanswerable by traditional orthodoxy (which are actually easily answered by theologians, pastors, or even "lay-people" who are interested in really loving and digging into the Word of God). There is absolutely no problem with a person departing from standard orthodoxy if they can properly defend their position.

Expect another post soon, which I'm calling The Best Ideas in Love Wins (or "Why I Wish Rob Bell Was Right").