This past Saturday, a new controversy erupted between two sides of the evangelical Christian world represented by pastoral super stars, Rob Bell and John Piper. The controversy swirls around Bell's new book, Love Wins, which discusses his views on heaven and hell. The problem is that no one knows his views just yet as the book hasn't even been published. The controversy is based on the promotional video and a few chapters that were released for review.
Bell and Piper aren't the only one's involved in this controversy. In fact, Piper's only contribution is a simple Tweet that states, "Farewell Rob Bell," which many take to be Piper's dismissal of Bell from the evangelical world. It is interesting and troubling to see that this controversy on the book's supposed content (that is, Bell might be someone who believes that God will save everyone in the end) has generated a hemorrhage of Twitter and Facebook discussions. Both sides are lining up and starting to take aim.
A little history for uninitiated:
John Piper is the father figure of the "Neo-Calvinist" movement that includes younger ministers like Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris and many of the writers at the Gospel Coalition site. This movement is committed to being doctrinally sound according to a modified version of the theological movement known as Calvinism, which is the idea that God predestines those who will be saved. They are also known for having a strong emphasis on morality and obedience to God's commandments.
On the other hand, we have Rob Bell who has become something of a rock star among younger, edgier evangelical Christians. He became a star through a series of videos called "Nouma," which discuss a variety of topics through the media of pseudo-hip film production. Bell's way of thinking is centered on the title of his book, Love Wins. That is, God loves everyone and seeks to save the whole world. Bell emphasizes the need to listen to everyone and be careful about too many doctrinal pronouncements.
As an ordained Evangelical Presbyterian minister, I'm often asked my opinion about these controversies and what "side" I choose. Do I like Piper or do I side with Bell? Indeed, that is the tone of the controversy as it shapes in the ether of the Internet. My response always shocks people. We should be for neither, and we should be for both.
The reason I say this is not a wishy washy attempt to avoid controversy. Rather, it's to point out that the choices being presented in the latest controversy are false choices. John Piper works hard at presenting an orthodox view of evangelical theology. Jesus' finished work of death and resurrection is the core of Christian belief. However, He and His followers are often, in the words of my best friend, "tone deaf." The Neo-Calvinists come off as smug and unloving as they roast Bell over a book they haven't even seen. They seem to have never heard of the cliché, "Don't judge a book by its cover (or marketing material)." They fight 300-year-old battles with 300-year-old theologians that most people have never heard about, much less read. Because of this, their tone comes off as unloving and smug mixed with a plain ole fist to the face. Piper's dismissive Tweet about Bell is a prime example of this attitude.
On the other hand, Bell represents a movement among younger evangelicals that considers theological truth as a secondary concern. They are more about the "journey" rather than the destination. Very often, this attitude leads them into areas that don't line up with the Nicene Creed, the ancient statement of faith of all Christians. They don't realize the journey can often be hard, time consuming and full of suffering. Sometimes, you would just like to be able to arrive and rest on something solid. They often have a dismissive attitude toward the side of the evangelical world represented by Piper, writing them off as legalistic jerks that care nothing for loving people.
Even worse, both sides often make the assertion they stand in for God, even as they both deny they do so. When statements like, "Either believe this or you aren't an orthodox Christian" or, "I think God is tired of iron clad," get thrown around, you know that both sides believe they are speaking for God.
Really, this all comes down to an illustration of a parable that Jesus told about two sons. In the wide world, it's known as the prodigal son, but the story is really about two brothers. The story tells us that a younger brother gets the inheritance from the father (demonstrating his hate for the father through wishing he were dead), goes and spends it and then is welcomed home by the father. The eldest son sees this, resents it and hates the father by yelling at him for taking the younger son back.
Really, the hero of the story is the Father who loves the sons that hate him. The father is a stand in for God and we are those sons. The elder brother is the side of the evangelical world that presents a smug, arrogant trust in their own self-righteousness. The younger brother is the side that wishes to dismiss any need to be concerned about real biblical doctrine and church tradition. Both of them hate aspects of the Father. One side hates his graciousness and tolerance for younger brothers trying to figure it out. The other side hates his fatherly concern for the truth.
But what both sides need to embrace is the Father, who is both gracious and truthful. We need to embrace the idea that sometimes it's not either/or, it's both/and.
Follow Rev. Jonathan Weyer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spookypastor
Rob Bell's Upcoming Book on Heaven & Hell Stirs Blog, Twitter ...
John Piper's Tweet: “Farewell Rob Bell” | New Leaven
Twitter / John Piper: Farewell Rob Bell. http:// ...
Christopher LaTondresse: Farewell Rob Bell (or, John Piper's Inferno)
Thoughts About Rob Bell, John Piper, and Justin Taylor - O Me of ...
Your question is irrelevant, and so is your answer. The correct response is to side with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. No man is 100% theologically correct, but anyone deciding truth from anything outside the Bible falls short of what Jesus Christ teaches, and has no place at God's table.
And I find it interesting that you attack Piper for saying Farewell to Rob Bell. It's easy to say farewell to someone who does not uphold biblical truth. It's really that simple, and shouldn't be complicated by folks such as yourself.
Indeed, the evangelical world often boasted of its uniformity to mount attacks on mainline Christianity. And with endless pronouncements from the pens of the famous, garnered the attention of the media and gave the impression that "Christians" believed this and such, and if you didn't believe this and such, you couldn't possible be a Christian - end of discussion.
In recent decades, shifting from theology to politics and sociology: guns, gays and abortion.
But, in reality, if anyone wanted to start a fight among evangelicals, all one had to do was ask a group of them to define the world "evangelical."
In reality, the breach between Piper and Bell, or Piper and Wright, is real and significant, and shouldn't be glossed over.
Thank God for creative minds like Bell and Wright who push the envelope and cause folks to think and think again. It's the only way to break the deadly grip of uniformity - always the bane of a living faith.
Hats off to a good fight! We'll all be the winner!
Thanks for writing. I certainly didn't try to downplay the coming part of the evangelical world. That is most certainly happening. That isn't really the intent. The plea is for both sides to sit down and have a dialogue about the differences. Indeed, that sort of approach could be used in all kinds of theological controversies, don't you think?
As for NT Wright, he is my favorite theologian hands down. Indeed, my approach in this article is inspired by his even handed approach.
I am an evangelical and fairly certain that relying on one's "self righteousness" on this "side" of the fence (as mentioned by Weyer above) is a determined "no no". However, it does appear one issue that gets paid a lot of lip service in these types of discussions is the very issue that Pontius Pilate wrestled with before he delivered Jesus to be crucified for sins - "What is truth?"
Christ, of course, answered the question earlier when He claimed that He is "...the way, the TRUTH, and the life...and no-one comes to the Father except through Me".
It may seem simplistic, but if Christians cannot know what "real" truth is then we are no better off than poor Pilate was. It's a comfort (as a Christian) to know that truth can not only be known - it can be known simply by reading God's words (if not, we must rely on our own corrupt hearts and minds to direct us toward truth) - a sorry predicament. As God mentioned a really long time ago - "I am the Lord, I do not change." I would submit that means He doesn't change with the times either - no matter how much we may want Him to.
And I agree that Bell is obviously a prodigal.
I agree that staunch evangelicals have weaknesses, mainly, loving people that are different.
What I don't see if how the author skips the fact of the prodigals total and complete repentance. This is a necessary part of the text in the Bible and it is clearly the fulcrum of the story. If it was framed, the changing of the prodigals heart would be the crucial aspect.
I either use "both/and" or nothing else?
I fully understand what you are saying, but i don't believe the issue comes to study. I think it is caused by study as a replacement for communication. It is a symptom of the age in which we live. It will take far more room to address what i mean than I have in the available space, but if you want to understand what I mean, I have stated it as clearly as I know how in my blog. http://steve-ruyle.blogspot.com
I understand what you are saying, but we disagree on cause and effect. I believe the problem is caused by reliance on study over communication. It is a symptom of the age we live in. I dont have enough room here to address it, but I have stated it as clearly as I know how in my blog. If you are interested in what I mean, http://steve-ruyle.blogspot.com about halfway through...
After two decades of research into this topic, I am convinced that many of those who perpetuate the idea that God intends to torture billions of people in the afterlife know very well that Jesus made no such claim. However, to accept what he really taught about God's nature is to call into question a LOT of what's passing for Evangelicalism these days, such as the head long support for laying up treasures on earth, especially, at the the expense of the poor, the sick and the disenfranchised.
Rick Lannoye, author
Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There Is No Such Place As Hell
www.thereisnohell.com
Thankfully, you don't have to take my word for it either. You can look at his translations here...
http://ricklannoye.com/?page_id=32
And then go here...
www.biblos.com (which will put parallels on one page)
or here...
www.biblegateway.com (which has more parallels available)
and type in the passage and verse to see what translators over the past 500 years have done with the passage at hand and how he varies from that tradition.
But what if those 500 years worth of Bible translators were conspiring? Go to Biblos.com, type in the chapter and verse (one verse at a time), and click the "Greek" tab. You'll get the Greek of the passage in interlinear format and can see for yourself how this gentlemen adds words to the text.
I agree. It seems these days that many of the leaders of the Evangelical Christian church in the U.S. have become more "Qadafi" like then Christ-like. They tolerate no dissent, protest or debate and even engage in pre-emptive prejudice against any views that may contradict their own. This maybe because their own theological arguments are weak and they are incapable of defending them in a vigorous way.
An anti-God/Christianity argument for generations has been, "sure there is a God, but who could really know him or encompass him in "one" religion. As long as we all believe something fairly accurate about God, that is good enough"....Obviously Christians of all creeds have rightfully argued against that position. The basic logic of that is found in the belief that if God exists, and desired to be known, He is perfectly capable of doing so, and therefore, there will be things that are genuinely true about Him and His character, and there are things that are not True concerning Himself and that they are knowable things, and we are responsible to know them correctly.
This feels to me like that same argument. Except, instead of the big question of God, we are talking about Theology. So, what is good and accurate theology. If I would argue that it is knowable and reliable then I should rightfully be able to identify bad and innaccurate theology and I would have a responsibility to show that it is wrong.....right??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMaz0CivB0s&NR=1
"Recently a Swami asked Maitreya: “What is meant in the Bible by ‘Loving your neighbour as yourself?’” Maitreya says: “To love your neighbour as yourself has nothing to do with religion. When it comes to loving yourself, you love your neighbour because the Self in him is the Self in you.”"
"Maitreya says that when He came as Jesus Christ He taught that everyone should love their neighbour as themselves."
"The teachings of Jesus are about detachment. “Love thy neighbour as thyself” means that although your neighbour has made you angry, through love that anger will dissolve. You realize you are not that anger. In this way clouds come and go, but you remain the same. You are not conditioned, not imprisoned. This is divine freedom in creation. Maitreya says: “You are in the Light, and the Light is in you.”"
- World Teacher Maitreya through an associate as reported by Share International
Really? I've seen several of his videos on youtube and I've read parts of Velvet Elvis and I can think of plenty of times where he rejects things spoken of in the Bible and in the creeds. He rejects Jesus being born of a Virgin. He rejects the Bible as being inspired by God. He rejects the gospel by saying that Jesus didn't die to save us from the wrath of God and in doing so makes his death on the cross insignificant.
He doesn't inspire "thought" so much as he inspires "doubt" in the authority if the Bible, the person and work Jesus, and the reality of the gospel.
"I affirm the historic Christian faith, which includes the virgin birthand the trinity and the inspiration of the Bible and much more. I'm part of it and I want to pass it on to the next generation. I believe that God created everything and that Jesus is Lord and God has plans to restore everything."
So about Rob Bell rejecting the virgin birth? About denying the inspiration if the BIble? Could he be more clear? Been reading blogs misquoting the book?
Furthermore, the Nicene Creed doesnt mention the inerrancy of scripture of penal substitionary atonement. the latter wasnt conceived of as a doctrine until Anselm around 1000 CE.
Please, please, do some research.
On what do you base the Bible to be directly written by God? It was assembled by a bunch of Romans a few hundred years after Jesus died.
And I find it simply laughable that anyone who believed the cross to be insignificant would essentially be dedicating their life's work to Christ.
"Orthodox" Christians need to brush up on the fancy stuff--like "intellect" and "history."
Of course, I should refute your other claims as well, but I can't speak for everyone who is "emergent" because there is no statement of faith, it is a diverse conversation. I would just like to point out, humbly, the irony of you saying that I am "out of touch." I will say however, that among the leaders and central figures of the Emergent movement and those associated with Emergent Village, namely the aforementioned Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren, and Phyllis Tickle, have never, in any public way, disavowed the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or the resurrection. The burden of proof is on you, my friend, as you are making outrageous allegations.