Antidote: A Cure for a Common Problem of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism
The first thing Aaron Blumer (publisher, SharperIron) said to me when we talked about our next conference was “I’m pretty skeptical of the idea of convergence.” Convergence—the idea that fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are heading toward, or should be working toward, convergence into one movement—has certainly been what some have perceived Standpoint Conference to be about. We would argue that’s an oversimplification of what we’re about. As our last Standpoint Conference concluded, we made a conscious choice to leave previous issues behind and move on to more critical issues.
Specifically, we believe that fundamentalism and evangelicalism face similar crises. For different reasons, fundamentalism has lurking at its most conservative end some who are less concerned with doctrine than they should be. Evangelicalism has, in the mainstream, those who are also less concerned with doctrine than they should be. On the extreme right of fundamentalism, this expresses itself with a near-obsessive attention to stylistic details that distracts from doctrinal issues. On the left of evangelicalism, church growth, political activism and social influence provide similar distractions.
The alarming result is that both are disengaged from issues that have serious doctrinal consequences. Among those on the far right of fundamentalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that the larger problems of Christianity are irrelevant to them. (“All who are to the left of us are ‘liberals’ anyway.”) Among those on the left of evangelicalism, the disengagement results from a feeling that all must be well because their churches are growing numerically.
Meanwhile, battles are being waged over ideas that represent vast theological shifts. These shifts are happening not just in institutions of higher learning, but in the pews. Rob Bell preaches a form of universalism, and thousands don’t know how to respond—or feel the need to soft-pedal their rejection. N.T. Wright’s New Perspective on Paul is only dimly understood (if at all) by the vast majority of those reading this article. The gay theologians advance their theories and they are uniformly rejected—but few realize that they are using hermeneutical models that are only slightly more radical than the ones taught in our colleges and seminaries. Ground is given, or freedom granted, on the roles of women in leadership, hermeneutics, creation models, eschatological views, all without recognizing that all of the changes are attached to theological structures that mean something and that changes in one area are harbingers of other changes to come—or changes that have already been made in theological viewpoints.
The role of writing
In the early 1900s, the spread of liberal theology drove a few men to engage in a series of lectures, papers and eventually books designed to address the crisis. The goal was to draw attention to liberal theology and renew interest in good theology. The Fundamentals, as a publication, became the foundation for all the fundamentalisms and evangelicalism we see today. They raised awareness of the issues and helped to turn back the tide of Liberalism.
We at Standpoint Conference propose to begin something similar. Over our next three conferences, we intend to address key issues that have theological implications that should alarm us. Your written contributions—or even lectures—may be helpful to us, and we desire your input.
We believe that the doctrinal drift of our times transcends the very real issues that still divide conservative evangelicals and those within the fundamentalist movement. Regardless of whether you believe in what Standpoint Conference has done in the past, or agree with its leadership team on certain particulars, you ought to care about theological purity. We challenge you to be part of the discussion.
This year’s planned topics include the importance of gender in theology and practice, the sufficiency of Scripture and modern counseling, the new mechanistic hermeneutics, responses to the gay theologians, which eschatological schemes are orthodox (and which are not), what constitutes authentic worship, the essentials of a believer’s life within the church body, the recent resurgence of various forms of inclusivism and universalism, and issues surrounding how we promote sanctification (if we can at all). The Standpoint Conference leadership is prepared to address some of these topics, if necessary; we are confident that there are persons with better knowledge of the topics who could address them more effectively. Perhaps you are one such person.
This need not be limited to the work of great doctors of theology. Pastors grounded in the Word through years of study can have equally valuable input. A detailed description of our topics for the next conference is at our website. Please consider them. In fact, we would welcome work on an entirely different topic of major doctrinal concern.
As of now, the conference has a great key-note speaker in Phil Johnson, of Grace to You. Phil is passionate about this topic and has spoken elsewhere on the need to re-emphasize sound doctrine in the church. Other speaker announcements will be made shortly. But we need the doctrinal core of the conference to come together soon—and that involves your help. Please stop by www.standpointconference.com today, look over our topics, and consider being part of the discussion.
Mike Durning Bio
Mike Durning has been the pastor at Mt. Pleasant Bible Church in Goodells, MI for more than 15 years. He attended Hyles-Anderson College, Midwestern Baptist Bible College and Bob Jones University over 8 years and somehow emerged with a mere bachelor’s degree. He lives in Goodells with his wife Terri and adult son, Ryan, and about 12 chickens that have wandered into his yard and like it better than the neighbor’s yard. Mike is flattered if you call him a “young fundamentalist,” since he is 46 and is prone to self-deception on such issues. If you see someone on the street who looks like the picture of Mike, but with gray hair, it probably is Mike.
- 84 views
I remember the problem pretty clearly, even though it’s been decades ago. MacArthur stated that references to the blood of Christ were metonyms for the death of Christ. A metonym is a figure of speech in which a part stands for the whole, such as “all hands on deck” instead of “everbody come to the deck.” MacArthur was saying that references to the blood of Christ were speaking of the death of Christ, a sort of shorthand for everything involved in His death. It turns out that MacArthur was and is correct on this issue, but some used it to malign and misrepresent him. It was, I fear, a shameful episode in the history of fundamentalism.
In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.
In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.
G. N. Barkman
DEAR MODERATOR: I tried to edit a post, and then there were two! Please delete number 80 or 81. Thanks. Mike
I continue to try to answer the questions given by Larry, and to some extent, Dr. McCune.
In last night’s post I attempted to explain my thoughts on the Bible teaching with regard to Christian Unity (see post # 62). Of course, much more needs to be done to expand that basic summary. Before I attempt to fill in more details, I want to divert course to two other issues. First, I want to post on the topic of what this view of Unity implies about how we do separation. Then, in the next few days, I want to talk about it in terms of general ecclesiology, and in particular, management of the local church.
Starting from the assumptions of the previous unity post, we have to ask the question “What are we saying when we practice separation?” If we have default unity with all believers, what does separation mean?
Separation is based on one of two assumptions:
1). The subject is a true believer, but is wayward. The form of separation, presumably, is designed to bring repentance (see II Thess. 3:6, 14-15 for an example). A secondary purpose of protecting the flock may be served.
2). The subject is not a true believer, and the separation is intended to guard the flock (II John 1:9-11).
A third state exists though…
3). The subject’s status as genuine believer or not is left unclear, or is open to some interpretive debate (I Tim. 6:3-5).
Other “separation passages” can be variously sorted into these 3 categories. These include, though are not limited to Matthew 18:15-17, Acts 19:9, Rom. 16:17-20, Eph. 5:11 (possibly), II Tim. 2:19, I Cor. 5:9-11, and II Tim. 3:1-9 (possibly).
Note the effect of sorting the separation verses into these 3 categories. True believers are only separated from (unity appears to be limited or broken) when there is sufficient cause and authorization, based on these passages. Otherwise, unity must be maintained. In fact, in some ways, it is maintained.
There is a tendency in the passages for the consistent and uncorrected teaching of false doctrine to become a presumptive evidence of non-believer status. This means that unity is not violated by separation, since the heretic is not a believer.
There is a tendency for the language used about believers to be softer than an ultimate separation instruction (as with II Thess. 3:15, where they are to be admonished as a brother). Again, unity is not violated, because the actions are not actions of separation, but of loving concern.
In some cases of grievous sin, after pleading for repentance, the local assembly of believers may judicially decide to separate from the individual believer (see Matthew 18:15-17). Though the treatment required (treating them like a pagan or tax collector) implies a judicial decision to treat them like an unbeliever, the treatment may be regarded as a loving desire to restore them / produce repentance. This is based on the fact that Jesus Himself, who gives this command, was notable for his outreach to pagans and tax collectors (though the culture did look down upon them). It is also indicated by Paul’s stated purpose for the execution of such a church discipline situation (I Cor. 5:5), that their spirit might be saved in the end. While there is a surface level that implies separation, a disunity, there is an underlying unity purpose, in that the congregation shows loving concern for the repentance and return of the subject of the discipline.
With the conclusion of these thoughts, I hope it is clear why I have stated my position the way I have: Unity is the default position we are to adopt toward all believers. Only when certain Scriptural conditions are met are we to practice separation. Even in those cases, it is my belief that unity is not violated, but enhanced (in the case of disciplining a believing and unrepentant sinner) or clarified (in the case of rejecting a heretic).
The distinction that is important in this is the underlying attitude. I continue to assert that in too many cases, Fundamentalist pastors start with a skeptical, anti-unity attitude, and require people to pass certain “tests” before they will grant them unity. This violates the spirit of Eph. 4, which urges us to guard the unity that is automatically present due to the Spirit and holdings in Christ we share in common.
The doctrine of separation, well studied and developed by Fundamentalists (though not always flawlessly, and not always practiced with good attitudes) is an important doctrine, but not so important that it outweighs the doctrine of unity.
I like to say the doctrines of unity and separation are in tension. Others might observe (correctly) that separation is, as described above, an expression of unity. After all, if there is no unity acknowledged, from what are we separating? I would not practice church discipline against a person who had never attended my church. The discipline only has meaning in the context of the unity.
But unity is key. And it is time we stop raising the bar for accepting, loving, teaching, and even admitting to our churches true believers who do not meet the criteria for separation. And that is the subject of my next post (Thursday night?) on ecclesiology, unity, and separation.
I continue to try to answer the questions given by Larry, and to some extent, Dr. McCune.
In last night’s post I attempted to explain my thoughts on the Bible teaching with regard to Christian Unity (see post # 62). Of course, much more needs to be done to expand that basic summary. Before I attempt to fill in more details, I want to divert course to two other issues. First, I want to post on the topic of what this view of Unity implies about how we do separation. Then, in the next few days, I want to talk about it in terms of general ecclesiology, and in particular, management of the local church.
Starting from the assumptions of the previous unity post, we have to ask the question “What are we saying when we practice separation?” If we have default unity with all believers, what does separation mean?
Separation is based on one of two assumptions:
1). The subject is a true believer, but is wayward. The form of separation, presumably, is designed to bring repentance (see II Thess. 3:6, 14-15 for an example). A secondary purpose of protecting the flock may be served.
2). The subject is not a true believer, and the separation is intended to guard the flock (II John 1:9-11).
A third state exists though…
3). The subject’s status as genuine believer or not is left unclear, or is open to some interpretive debate (I Tim. 6:3-5).
Other “separation passages” can be variously sorted into these 3 categories. These include, though are not limited to Matthew 18:15-17, Acts 19:9, Rom. 16:17-20, Eph. 5:11 (possibly), II Tim. 2:19, I Cor. 5:9-11, and II Tim. 3:1-9 (possibly).
Note the effect of sorting the separation verses into these 3 categories. True believers are only separated from (unity appears to be limited or broken) when there is sufficient cause and authorization, based on these passages. Otherwise, unity must be maintained. In fact, in some ways, it is maintained.
There is a tendency in the passages for the consistent and uncorrected teaching of false doctrine to become a presumptive evidence of non-believer status. This means that unity is not violated by separation, since the heretic is not a believer.
There is a tendency for the language used about believers to be softer than an ultimate separation instruction (as with II Thess. 3:15, where they are to be admonished as a brother). Again, unity is not violated, because the actions are not actions of separation, but of loving concern.
In some cases of grievous sin, after pleading for repentance, the local assembly of believers may judicially decide to separate from the individual believer (see Matthew 18:15-17). Though the treatment required (treating them like a pagan or tax collector) implies a judicial decision to treat them like an unbeliever, the treatment may be regarded as a loving desire to restore them / produce repentance. This is based on the fact that Jesus Himself, who gives this command, was notable for his outreach to pagans and tax collectors (though the culture did look down upon them). It is also indicated by Paul’s stated purpose for the execution of such a church discipline situation (I Cor. 5:5), that their spirit might be saved in the end. While there is a surface level that implies separation, a disunity, there is an underlying unity purpose, in that the congregation shows loving concern for the repentance and return of the subject of the discipline.
With the conclusion of these thoughts, I hope it is clear why I have stated my position the way I have: Unity is the default position we are to adopt toward all believers. Only when certain Scriptural conditions are met are we to practice separation. Even in those cases, it is my belief that unity is not violated, but enhanced (in the case of disciplining a believing and unrepentant sinner) or clarified (in the case of rejecting a heretic).
The distinction that is important in this is the underlying attitude. I continue to assert that in too many cases, Fundamentalist pastors start with a skeptical, anti-unity attitude, and require people to pass certain “tests” before they will grant them unity. This violates the spirit of Eph. 4, which urges us to guard the unity that is automatically present due to the Spirit and holdings in Christ we share in common.
The doctrine of separation, well studied and developed by Fundamentalists (though not always flawlessly, and not always practiced with good attitudes) is an important doctrine, but not so important that it outweighs the doctrine of unity.
I like to say the doctrines of unity and separation are in tension. Others might observe (correctly) that separation is, as described above, an expression of unity. After all, if there is no unity acknowledged, from what are we separating? I would not practice church discipline against a person who had never attended my church. The discipline only has meaning in the context of the unity.
But unity is key. And it is time we stop raising the bar for accepting, loving, teaching, and even admitting to our churches true believers who do not meet the criteria for separation. And that is the subject of my next post (Thursday night?) on ecclesiology, unity, and separation.
[G. N. Barkman] In a different vein, MacArthur used to teach that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but became the Son at His incarnation. This was truly a serious error, which MacArthur has long since acknowledged and corrected. Interestingly, I am not aware that many fundamentalists demonstrated the same level of concern over this doctrinal matter as they did over the blood issue, which is more emotional than theological.It’s not my job to defend MacArthur, but I think an important distinction needs to be made. It is my understandign that he was not denying the eternality of Jesus as the 2nd person of the trinity. He was denying the role or title of Son as an eternal title, linking it distinctly to the incarnation event. The argument can be made, but it is not consistent with most theologies.
I just don’t want anyone thinking that MacArthur was adopting a view like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Mike, thanks for the clarification. That is my understanding as well.
G. N. Barkman
[Don Johnson] Hi again, Jay.No problem. I’m glad you saved me from myself! :D
Thanks for getting what I was saying yesterday. I’ve been away all day and haven’t been able to acknowledge your response.
But on rumours and hearsay: you said that the MacArthur story didn’t include a reference to what he actually said… well, not so. There are things that you can criticize people about in that story, but the fact is that there are several written statements by MacArthur that were ambiguous at best, so the complaint wasn’t based on nothing. I have some documents in my files…. hmmm… packed away somewhere… that I could scan and send you at some future date to confirm what I am saying. Can’t get my hands on them right now…If someone does have a copy of that article that ran, I’d LOVE to see it. All the evidence that I’ve been able to find (and this issue has bothered me for years) is contained on the link that I posted above by Phil Johnson. I don’t necessarily want to start the whole issue up again, but I think that it is critically important that the verifiable facts be known, esp. since MacArthur continues to get harassed by this.
However, I have no wish to rehash that here. I am just continuing a caution of being careful about making statements in these arguments that rely on memory. We are all subject to the vagaries of memory and make assumptions about what we think we remember. So be careful…
On your last point, do you think it is ok to ‘separate’ (or find a better term) from Rob Bell, the Michigan universalist? I mean, what legitimate interaction do you or I have with him?I agree with you that the “separation” term is badly overused.
I do think that using the term “separation” to apply to so many different actions of discernment is part of the problem.
http://sharperiron.org/comment/29718#comment-29718] As I said before , I don’t think that I can legitimately “separate” from Rob Bell since I don’t know him personally or have ever read any books that he’s written. I think Bell falls into the 2 Thess 3:13-15, 2 John 10, and possibly Romans 16:17 categories of “mark and avoid”. Based on what little I have read that he’s said, I don’t see how he could possibly be a believer, so the whole idea of his being my ‘brother’ is a disconnect. There are four copies of Love Wins in my local library, so I may have to eventually borrow one to make sure that I’m understanding his ideas correctly.
Finally, if I can expand on post #77 a little (new sections are in bold):
1. Rumors and hearsay - the infamous John MacArthur denies the blood story didn’t include a reference to whatever statement MacArthur actually said and wasn’t verifiable. People believed it because it came from a “trustworthy” source.
2. “Separating” from people that I don’t actually know or have any legitimate interaction with (I can’t separate from John Piper, John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes because I have never met them). Jim Peet has done a good job in pointing that out on a couple occasions.
3. It is not possible to Biblically separate from people that you do not have direct, personal relationships.
4. It is not possible to separate from people who are not saved in the first place.
Point #4 is where the Biblical command to know a tree by it’s fruits (Matthew 7:15-23) and why a right understanding of the gospel is critical. If we continually define people like Bell as ‘believers’, our separation model will be flawed.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.]Jay, using “separation” in the broadest sense possible, as in “that which violates the visible and practical unity between believers”, I’m not sure I agree.
3. It is not possible to Biblically separate from people that you do not have direct, personal relationships.
I can acknowledge someone else is a brother, and then “mark” and “avoid” them (as in Rom. 16:17-20) at a distance.
An example came up recently. Rob Bell’s most recent work denying eternal suffering hit some parts of Michigan as a shock. While our church is about 3 hours from Grand Rapids, and many of our people have never heard of him, we have a recent graduate from a Christian college in Grand Rapids. He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd. So I have Crystal, the recent graduate, who says that she is alarmed for her fellow-alumni and is in contact with them. And we have the frequenters of “Christian” Bookstores, who will doubtless see the book prominently displayed.
So, I “marked” him by explaining to the congregation. Avoiding him IS problematical, I’ll grant, since we weren’t in any kind of fellowship with him anyway, nor were we promoting his materials in any way.
But “marking” is a breaking of unity on the most visible level (and thus, a separative act), though we acknowledge the underlying unity that exists because we accept that Rob Bell is likely a redeemed individual. We pray for him to turn around theologically on that basis.
[Mike Durning] Jay, using “separation” in the broadest sense possible, as in “that which violates the visible and practical unity between believers”, I’m not sure I agree.I think you’re right; I do disagree with you on this. I don’t see how Bell can be credibly held to any orthodox position. I’ll note that he says http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA] he’s not a universalist (which is good). But look at what the doctrinal statement of his church is:
I can acknowledge someone else is a brother, and then “mark” and “avoid” them (as in Rom. 16:17-20) at a distance.
An example came up recently. Rob Bell’s most recent work denying eternal suffering hit some parts of Michigan as a shock. While our church is about 3 hours from Grand Rapids, and many of our people have never heard of him, we have a recent graduate from a Christian college in Grand Rapids. He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd. So I have Crystal, the recent graduate, who says that she is alarmed for her fellow-alumni and is in contact with them. And we have the frequenters of “Christian” Bookstores, who will doubtless see the book prominently displayed.
So, I “marked” him by explaining to the congregation. Avoiding him IS problematical, I’ll grant, since we weren’t in any kind of fellowship with him anyway, nor were we promoting his materials in any way.
But “marking” is a breaking of unity on the most visible level (and thus, a separative act), though we acknowledge the underlying unity that exists because we accept that Rob Bell is likely a redeemed individual. We pray for him to turn around theologically on that basis.
Mars Hill: Narrative Theology
We believe God inspired the authors of Scripture by his Spirit to speak to all generations of believers, including us today. God calls us to immerse ourselves in this authoritative narrative communally and individually to faithfully interpret and live out that story today as we are led by the Spirit of God.
In the beginning God created all things good. He was and always will be in a communal relationship with himself-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God created us to be relational as well and marked us with an identity as his image bearers and a missional calling to serve, care for, and cultivate the earth. God created humans in his image to live in fellowship with him, one another, our inner self, and creation. The enemy tempted the first humans, and darkness and evil entered the story through human sin and are now a part of the world. This devastating event resulted in our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming.
We believe God did not abandon his creation to destruction and decay; rather he promised to restore this broken world. As part of this purpose, God chose a people, Abraham and his descendants, to represent him in the world. God promised to bless them as a nation so that through them all nations would be blessed. In time they became enslaved in Egypt and cried out to God because of their oppression. God heard their cry, liberated them from their oppressor, and brought them to Sinai where he gave them an identity and a mission as his treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, a holy people. Throughout the story of Israel, God refused to give up on his people despite their frequent acts of unfaithfulness to him.
God brought his people into the Promised Land. Their state of blessing from God was intimately bound to their calling to embody the living God to other nations. They made movement toward this missional calling, yet they disobeyed and allowed foreign gods into the land, overlooked the poor, and mistreated the foreigner. The prophetic voices that emerge from the Scriptures held the calling of Israel to the mirror of how they treated the oppressed and marginalized. Through the prophets, God’s heart for the poor was made known, and we believe that God cares deeply for the marginalized and oppressed among us today.
In Israel’s disobedience, they became indifferent and in turn irrelevant to the purposes to which God had called them. For a time, they were sent into exile; yet a hopeful remnant was always looking ahead with longing and hope to a renewed reign of God, where peace and justice would prevail.
We believe these longings found their fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, mysteriously God having become flesh. Jesus came to preach good news to the poor, to bind up the brokenhearted and set captives free, proclaiming a new arrival of the kingdom of God, bringing about a new exodus, and restoring our fractured world. He and his message were rejected by many as he confronted the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome. Yet his path of suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection has brought hope to all creation. Jesus is our only hope for bringing peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into right relationship with God. God is now reconciling us to each other, ourselves, and creation. The Spirit of God affirms as children of God all those who trust Jesus. The Spirit empowers us with gifts, convicts, guides, comforts, counsels, and leads us into truth through a communal life of worship and a missional expression of our faith. The church is rooted and grounded in Christ, practicing spiritual disciplines and celebrating baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The church is a global and local expression of living out the way of Jesus through love, peace, sacrifice, and healing as we embody the resurrected Christ, who lives in and through us, to a broken and hurting world.
We believe the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge the world, bringing an end to injustice and restoring all things to God’s original intent. God will reclaim this world and rule forever. The earth’s groaning will cease and God will dwell with us here in a restored creation. On that day we will beat swords into tools for cultivating the earth, the wolf will lie down with the lamb, there will be no more death, and God will wipe away all our tears. Our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation will be whole. All will flourish as God intends. This is what we long for. This is what we hope for. And we are giving our lives to living out that future reality now.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Here are some things that Bell doesn’t mention:
1. God’s wrath on sin - since sin is an offense to God, and our condemnation is not a ransom, but the just sentence of God.
2. Substitutionary atonement for sin by the death of Christ
3. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, although he does say:
1. The openness of ‘non Christian’ theologies (but only as long as they line up with what he says)
2. The heavy, heavy emphasis on social justice as a critical component of belief
3. The work of Jesus as “confront[ing] the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome.”
4. The emphasis on “communal” and “missional” living
5. Although he refers to Jesus as “God mysteriously becoming flesh”, he doesn’t say that Jesus was “fully God” or “fully man”. He also leaves open the possibility that it could some kind of divine incarnation could happen again.
6. He mentions resurrection twice but doesn’t explain the importance of it (Acts 2:25).
7. He mentions “our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming” but downplays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity] total depravity .
8. Finally, he denies the existence of a real, literal hell with conscious suffering for sin.
So if there’s some legitimate reason to consider him as orthodox, I’d like to know what it is.
edit - Al Mohler seems to agree with me. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2011/03/15/msnbc_host_makes_ro…!] He writes :
1. God’s wrath on sin - since sin is an offense to God, and our condemnation is not a ransom, but the just sentence of God.
2. Substitutionary atonement for sin by the death of Christ
3. The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, although he does say:
Since story is central to our belief about God, our words about God–our theology–exists in the form of a narrative. You won’t find isolated text references or a list of specific propositions in it, because ultimately neither of those things best reflects what we believe about God. What we believe about God is at the heart of what we believe also about each other, ourselves, and creation: that ultimately everything is part of the one great story.Note somethings that Bell does mention:
1. The openness of ‘non Christian’ theologies (but only as long as they line up with what he says)
2. The heavy, heavy emphasis on social justice as a critical component of belief
3. The work of Jesus as “confront[ing] the oppressive nature of the religious elite and the empire of Rome.”
4. The emphasis on “communal” and “missional” living
5. Although he refers to Jesus as “God mysteriously becoming flesh”, he doesn’t say that Jesus was “fully God” or “fully man”. He also leaves open the possibility that it could some kind of divine incarnation could happen again.
6. He mentions resurrection twice but doesn’t explain the importance of it (Acts 2:25).
7. He mentions “our relationships with God, others, ourselves, and creation being fractured and in desperate need of redeeming” but downplays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity] total depravity .
8. Finally, he denies the existence of a real, literal hell with conscious suffering for sin.
So if there’s some legitimate reason to consider him as orthodox, I’d like to know what it is.
edit - Al Mohler seems to agree with me. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2011/03/15/msnbc_host_makes_ro…!] He writes :
As a communicator, Rob Bell is a genius. He is the master of the pungent question, the turn-the-picture-upside-down story, and the personal anecdote. Like Harry Emerson Fosdick, the paladin of pulpit liberalism, Rob Bell is a master communicator. Had he set out to defend the biblical doctrine of hell, he could have done so marvelously. He would have done the church a great service. But that is not what he set out to do.Edit 2 - Kevin DeYoung posted a http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWins…] twenty page PDF review as well. He says:
Like Fosdick, Rob Bell cares deeply for people. It comes through in his writings. There is no reason to doubt that Bell wrote this book out of his own personal concern for people who are put off by the doctrine of hell. Had that concern been turned toward a presentation of how the biblical doctrine of hell fits within the larger context of God’s love and justice and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that would have been a help to untold thousands of Christians and others seeking to understand the Christian faith…Instead, Rob Bell uses his incredible power of literary skill and communication to unravel the Bible’s message and to cast doubt on its teachings.
He states his concern clearly: A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness, and joy that our world desperately needs to hear.
That is a huge statement, and it is clear enough…In Love Wins, Bell does his best to argue that the church has allowed the story of Jesus’ love to be perverted by other stories. The story of an eternal hell is not, he believes, a good story. He suggests that a better story would involve the possibility of a sinner coming to faith in Christ after death, or hell being a cessation of being, or hell being eventually emptied of all its inhabitants. The problem, of course, is that the Bible provides no hint whatsoever of any possibility of a sinner’s salvation after death. Instead, “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment.” [Hebrews 9:27]
He also argues for a form of universal salvation. Once again, his statements are more suggestive than declarative, but he clearly intends his reader to be persuaded that it is possible — even probable — that those who resist, reject, or never hear of Christ may be saved through Christ nonetheless. That means no conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. He knows that he must deal with a text like Romans 10 in making this argument, “How are they to hear without someone preaching?” [Romans 10:14] Bell says that he wholeheartedly agrees with that argument from the Apostle Paul, but then he dumps the entire argument overboard and suggests that this cannot be God’s plan. He completely avoids Paul’s conclusion that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” [Romans 10:17] He rejects the idea that a person must come to a personal knowledge of Christ in this life in order to be saved.
…But this is how Rob Bell deals with the Bible. He argues that the gates that never shut in the New Jerusalem [Revelation 21:25] mean that the opportunity for salvation is never closed, but he just avoids dealing with the preceding chapter, which includes this clear statement of God’s justice: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” [Revelation 20:15] The eternally open gates of the New Jerusalem come only after that judgment.
Unfortunately, beyond this, there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay C.] I think you’re right; I do disagree with you on this. I don’t see how Bell can be credibly held to any orthodox position.Jay, I never said he was orthodox. Wouldn’t dare say it. I said he is “likely a redeemed individual”. I can see why you might question that, and lean more toward unlikely, though.
Please do not interpret anything I said as defending him. Remember I “marked” him and am “avoiding” any association.
I didn’t mean to imply that you thought he was orthodox, but I don’t think that Bell is ‘a redeemed individual’. I say that based on what I noted above - his statement of ‘narrative theology’. I do not believe that it is possible for someone who so clearly misunderstands and teaches a false gospel to be part of the believing Church. I think Bell falls into the Luke 8:5 category of people who profess belief but are really unregenerate.
Maybe I’m grossly oversimplying here, but Bell can’t, or won’t, articulate a clear gospel message on his church website or in the interview that I linked to above. So how can he possibly believe it?
Maybe I’m grossly oversimplying here, but Bell can’t, or won’t, articulate a clear gospel message on his church website or in the interview that I linked to above. So how can he possibly believe it?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment of Bell. However, more to the point of this thread, I think this discussion is exactly the reason we have to stop being so dogmatic about our personal flavor of separation. Two solid men identify Bell differently here. That is going to impact the way they describe him and potentially how they interact with him. This kind of thing goes on all the time all up and down the ecclesiastical (and theological/philosophical) rolls. Fundamentalists must be able to come to opinions that diverge with others, at least to some degree, without being castigated. I think this is the heart of the discussion regarding our interaction with CE’s.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] I tend to agree with Jay’s assessment of Bell. However, more to the point of this thread, I think this discussion is exactly the reason we have to stop being so dogmatic about our personal flavor of separation. Two solid men identify Bell differently here. That is going to impact the way they describe him and potentially how they interact with him. This kind of thing goes on all the time all up and down the ecclesiastical (and theological/philosophical) rolls. Fundamentalists must be able to come to opinions that diverge with others, at least to some degree, without being castigated. I think this is the heart of the discussion regarding our interaction with CE’s.I guess in response to Jay C’s comment, I would say that the jury is still out on Bell. If he returns to the doctrinal fold in a few years, I think it will be certain He knew Christ. I’m praying for that. If he stays where he is, then I suspect he does not.
Meanwhile, I’m not so sure it makes a huge difference. My “mark” and “avoid” will be little different than Jay’s treatment of him, in the end.
I should mention that some are poking me personally and telling me that the “mark” and “avoid” verses are about unbelievers. Taking a look at that too.
He is BIG in Grand Rapids, especially among the student crowd.Yes and No…..There is also a huge reaction against him in Grand Rapids, not only from conservative evangelicals like Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (which was the starting church of Mars Hill), but even more broad evangelical churches such as those from the evangelical covenant crowd. African-American and Latino Churches in Grand Rapids have never been enamored by him, even when the “Mars Hill Miracle”(thats what M.H. insiders have called themselves) began. For our ministry in Grand Rapids, our only concern comes from sheltered Christian college students (usually guys) with Man crushes (they began dressing and acting “hip” like him) on Rob that want to volunteer with our urban ministry so that they can demonstrate justice to the poor and oppressed. Whats really ironic is that these young evangelical progressive emergent types who are most vocal about “social justice” seem most disgusted and upset by a God that even brings justice and eternal punishment against those unregenerate that oppressed or ignored the poor during their lifetime.
[Joel Shaffer] Yes and No…..There is also a huge reaction against him in Grand Rapids, not only from conservative evangelicals like Calvary Church of Grand Rapids (which was the starting church of Mars Hill), but even more broad evangelical churches such as those from the evangelical covenant crowd. African-American and Latino Churches in Grand Rapids have never been enamored by him, even when the “Mars Hill Miracle”(thats what M.H. insiders have called themselves) began. For our ministry in Grand Rapids, our only concern comes from sheltered Christian college students (usually guys) with Man crushes (they began dressing and acting “hip” like him) on Rob that want to volunteer with our urban ministry so that they can demonstrate justice to the poor and oppressed. Whats really ironic is that these young evangelical progressive emergent types who are most vocal about “social justice” seem most disgusted and upset by a God that even brings justice and eternal punishment against those unregenerate that oppressed or ignored the poor during their lifetime.Thanks for the encouraging report.
In response to some questions, I have given my position on Unity and Separation. That leaves us with a question: How does this position on Unity and Separation influence Ecclesiology, especially with regard to the local church?
Based on the premise that Unity exists between all true believers by default, our church must be more accepting, rather than more restrictive.
Our church sees a doctrinal statement as being descriptive of the taught position of the church, rather than as outlining the bounds of fellowship. The board is given authority to evaluate for membership those who have “mild” disagreements with the doctrinal statement, so long as they give firm profession of faith and seem to properly understand the gospel.. Thus, we have received into membership historic amil guys, charismatics, etc. They must agree to abide by the Statement of Faith. For instance, the Charismatics had to agree to not speak in tongues publicly or encourage it among others. Disagreements with our position are dealt with as teaching issues, not heresy issues, unless they become stubborn about the “discussion” that is on-going between us, or their position becomes a launch pad for other more serious doctrinal deviations..
What has been the impact of this?
1). The presence of those who feel differently about such things has forced us to frequently slow down and explain what’s under the hood of our theology. This has enriched the teaching, but not broadened it. Our church folk have become more certain of what we believe and why we believe it, and we have seen others change their views toward ours (or, occasionally, move on). We have not adjusted our position, but become more certain.
2). The presence of those who come from different traditions has been a great blessing. For example, the Charismatic family, having learned to think Scripturally as we try to do, still tended to be more adventurous in ventures that required much faith. The result was they were eager to challenge the “timid and stodgy” crowd when it came to stepping out to do that which God had clearly called our church to do.
Based on the premise that Unity exists between all true believers by default, our church must be more accepting, rather than more restrictive.
Our church sees a doctrinal statement as being descriptive of the taught position of the church, rather than as outlining the bounds of fellowship. The board is given authority to evaluate for membership those who have “mild” disagreements with the doctrinal statement, so long as they give firm profession of faith and seem to properly understand the gospel.. Thus, we have received into membership historic amil guys, charismatics, etc. They must agree to abide by the Statement of Faith. For instance, the Charismatics had to agree to not speak in tongues publicly or encourage it among others. Disagreements with our position are dealt with as teaching issues, not heresy issues, unless they become stubborn about the “discussion” that is on-going between us, or their position becomes a launch pad for other more serious doctrinal deviations..
What has been the impact of this?
1). The presence of those who feel differently about such things has forced us to frequently slow down and explain what’s under the hood of our theology. This has enriched the teaching, but not broadened it. Our church folk have become more certain of what we believe and why we believe it, and we have seen others change their views toward ours (or, occasionally, move on). We have not adjusted our position, but become more certain.
2). The presence of those who come from different traditions has been a great blessing. For example, the Charismatic family, having learned to think Scripturally as we try to do, still tended to be more adventurous in ventures that required much faith. The result was they were eager to challenge the “timid and stodgy” crowd when it came to stepping out to do that which God had clearly called our church to do.
Discussion