Category Archives: Uncategorized

Unknown's avatar

Bell Interview and Salvific Stinginess

by
There has been much buzz about Rob Bell’s book Love Wins, which apparently, according to a number of reviewers, depicts some sort of universal salvation. Many people have already written about it, so many that I don’t know if I’ll even purchase the book (which I had originally planned on doing out of curiosity and making an informed decision myself). 
This interview below is worth the price of admission for sure. Martin Bashir continues to allege that Bell is simply trying to present a picture of the gospel that won’t offend people. Bashir finds that offensive, and reasons that it doesn’t matter what you do with Jesus in this life. I doubt that Bashir himself believes the gospel, but even he can smell a ‘sell job’ from a mile away. He continues to try to get a squeamish Rob Bell to admit he’s just trying to placate people, and deal with some evangelicalism induced, repressed childhood memories. Priceless.
Yet there’s still another response from the Rob Bell responders that surprised me in both positive and negative ways.
Richard Muow, president of Fuller Seminary, speaks positively about the book. He is not a universalist and claims Bell isn’t either. Other folks seem to have a different take. Maybe I’ll have to read it after all……
But on the very positive side, Muow cautioned Christians away from not simply picturing Hell too empty but also from picturing it fuller than it may be. This line is beautiful.
Why don’t folks who criticize Rob Bell for wanting to let too many people in also go after people like that who want to keep too many people out? Why are we rougher on salvific generosity than on salvific stinginess?
 
Theologically conservative folks might need to be careful about “salvific stinginess.” Or in other words, slicing the pie of who’s in and who’s not, too thin. Jesus says that only he can save, and Paul gives a list of folks, like greedy or swindlers, who won’t inherit the Kingdom of Heaven without repentance (I Cor 6:10). But people don’t have “saved” tags on them. Revelation reminds us that the one who “conquers” (Rev 2:7) or remains faithful to the end will taste the fruit of a new Heaven and Earth.

The best we can do is make educated guesses based upon Christ and the fruit of His Spirit. It’s probably best to speak in terms of levels of confidence instead of being dogmatic when dealing with people who claim Christ, demonstrate some fruit, and persevere until the end.

Unknown's avatar

Jeffersonian and Geoffersonian thoughts

by
I remember one summer eating at Panera with an early morning men’s bible study. It was part of a brief three week internship when I lived in Richmond waiting to get married (Jacob had to live 14 years near in-laws; I just had three weeks-so that wasn’t too bad). One guy talked about how he was learning of Thomas Jefferson’s faith and then referred to him as a “Christian.”
I can’t remember the discussion that ensued other than some follow up questions to such a ridiculous claim. In case you’re not aware, Thomas Jefferson literally cut out the parts of the bible which didn’t run counter to his own deistic theology (he left the miracles, among other things-God was the divine clockmaker and played a hand’s off role) and rationalism. He was not a Christian by any respectable definition I’ve heard. 
Check out this article where folks are trying to restore the Jefferson bible called the “Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazereth.” The exhibit includes this book of excerpted pages, as well as the bibles from which he cut them out. Sad, but very interesting.
Well at least he was consistent and thorough with his rational “faith” commitment. Jefferson’s beliefs would be fairly easy to address because you could simply go to his personal bible and see what was or wasn’t there. That would be one easy way. Gosh that would be intimidating because he was a smart dude.
I don’t know how cutting out pieces of the bible would have been received in his time. But today that probably wouldn’t fly so much in the church or even in alternative faith communities. 
Since our bibles are usually all in one piece with verses in tact, is there another way to discern whether or not we or others actually believe the content (commands, promises, doctrine, truth, overall story) on those pages? Yep, our lives, our behavior. When I look at my life, or any life for that matter, it will tell me exactly what I believe. How I spend my money, how I treat my kids, what I say driving down the street, are all affected by what I believe or don’t believe.
The amount that my life changes is the amount that I truly believe the gospel. If I’m declared righteous in God’s sight-even though righteousness in this earthly community depends upon behavior/performance and my kids’ behavior/performance-and my needs will be taken care of, and so will my real enemies, I will be generous with my money, love my kids more (but not need them), and pray for my enemies. 
Is that what my life always looks like? Hmmm…..

Just because we don’t cut stuff out doesn’t mean that we’re SO different than Mr. Jefferson. Admitting that we don’t believe as much as we say we believe is really the key to changing our behaviors.

Unknown's avatar

Tsunami thoughts: A God who grieves

by
I just watched some crazy video last night of the Tsunami’s devastation in Japan as cars were moved to and fro like driftwood. The power of water, something which seems so, well, not hard (I know that sounds very scientific) never fails to bedazzle me. How destructive it can be. And then I’m also amazed at some of the survival stories, such as this one, where a man is seen sitting on a piece of roof, having floated 9-10 miles out to sea before being rescued. Unfortunately his wife didn’t make it.
There is time for theodicy (defending the existence of God amidst such evil), but obviously not now. The time is to mourn and pray and trust that the waters of the ocean will have washed away any spiritual apathy toward the gospel in Japan and everywhere.
Yet I have found one very helpful theological truth when wading through the mess of such natural disasters and “man-made” disasters like 911. While I hold firmly to the fact that God ordains all that comes to pass, that doesn’t mean that He sits unmoved by all things. For instance, at one point He was “grieved” that He had made man, and Saul king (Gen 6:6; I Sam 15:11). 
It doesn’t mean that he regretted it. I think it shows that God can ordain things which grieve Him. Scripture doesn’t say that God grieved while Jesus was on the cross, but does it really need to? God clearly ordained that Jesus bear the cross for our sins, but do you think His experience was the same as when Jesus was baptized and He said, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased? (Matt 3:17)”
In addition, our own experience reminds us that we too can “ordain” things which grieve us. For instance, the way a Father chooses to discipline His son. That grieves me, but I still planned for it happen and didn’t regret it.
We cannot fully comprehend the extent of God’s emotional frame as He exists both in and outside time as we know it. We can only know such emotions/thoughts are perfect, the way Jesus’ were perfect: he was righteously angry, and righteously joyful. 
In the end, we don’t have a weak God, but a powerful one who still grieves with the broken.

We have a God who can grieve, even in the midst of what He has ordained. And that’s unique. And that’s helpful too.

Unknown's avatar

From the Fan’s perspective

by

Just a day ago, the NFL talks between owners and union officially came to an impasse. The owners are going with a lockout and the union has de-certified. Much of the bickering back and forth has been extremely confusing for anyone without a law degree, at least on one level. On another level it is as simple as “each side wants more money.” Of course there are different nuances like protection for players, an 18 game season, shorter off-season routines, and the like. But in the end its hard to deny that money doesn’t have the most to do with it (love’s sure got nothing to do with it).

And so for the average fan like myself, I see two angry factions fighting over some things I just don’t get: the issues, the terms, and of course the ludicrous amount of money. Both sides look like a bunch of yahoos.

I wonder if that’s what non-believers think when they see opposing parties in the Church blasting each other over spiritual issues they just don’t get. I’m not saying that some issues aren’t worth fighting over like breaches of orthodox doctrine. And I know that the natural mind isn’t going to “get” why some truths are so important because those truths are only “spiritually discerned (I Cor 2:14).”

There will inevitably be some confusion or condescension from unbelievers amidst fierce church debate. Yet I wonder if unbelievers often see our back-and-forth as not much different than owners and players squabbling over issues and money which they just can’t understand.

Perhaps we will have more sympathy for the unbeliever if we can see our public debates from the “fans” perspective. Maybe it will make us be more gracious to one another?

Unknown's avatar

There may be no crying in baseball but basketball is a different story

by
While there may be “no crying in baseball” according to Tom Hanks in A League of Their Own, there certainly is in the NBA. And I’m not talking about the prevalent whining to officials which characterizes the league and its stars. And it’s not just Michael Jordan making Kwame Brown cry in practice. The latest display of tears came from the much hyped Miami Heat locker room the other day. After their 4th loss in a row, and a tough one at that to the Chicago Bulls, the coach reported that there a “couple of guys crying in the locker room.”
Here are a few of my takes on “crying in basketball”
1.) The difference in crying in the NBA and college is not tears, but where you shed them. Crying in the NBA occurs in the locker room or at practice. But the college kids aren’t afraid to shed a few tears during NCAA tournament losses, and sometimes even in victories. When people get older, or more “professional,” they get better at hiding their tears. Unfortunately, this is often the case in our Christian lives. As we get older, we get better at hiding our hurt and need before others, even to the point where younger Christians might get the impression that such folks have “arrived.” Not good. God gives us  proverbial “locker rooms” (family, close friends, small groups, etc…) to cry, but we should never hide our brokenness so much that we give the appearance of having it all together.
2.) I wonder if Coach Eric Spoelstra had the individual criers, or even the team’s best interest in mind when he admitted grown men were crying over a loss. Spoelstra simply tried to let the media know that the players really did care about losing, and weren’t satisfied with the current state of affairs. However, what he did was create a stormy speculation game of “who was crying” and open his team up to further unnecessary disrespect. Revealing your own need and weakness shows that you are secure in Christ, and that he came to die for people like you (I Tim 1:15). There is much beauty in brokenness.  Revealing others brokenness without their approval is a different story. We’re better at that one.
3.) Should a Christian ball player cry after a loss? I don’t know. Tim Tebow did. Sometimes I get too involved into sports, whether watching football or playing church softball, so I’m not approaching this from high ground looking down on others who cry. Perhaps tears are acceptable for athletes in the moment of defeat? After all, their failure or success is seen by millions. But for fans or players, losses in sports can’t be allowed to linger. Jesus enabled Paul to be content whether well fed or hungry; Christ, who can do all things not only calls us to contentment, but empowers our contentment in all situations (Phil 4:12-13). So if crying is acceptable hours after defeat, I don’t think it’s acceptable days after a tough loss. 


Unknown's avatar

I just don’t feel connected to this church…..

by
I’m aware that sometimes churches are incredibly unfriendly. I’ve been to ones like that. Sometimes churches make it hard to “break in,” and feel very clique-ish. I get that too. And I know Redeemer isn’t perfect, in any aspect of our ministry, so we can certainly get better in providing community (though I think we do a pretty good job). Expecting perfection in the church now is a little on the premature side. That comes when Rev 21 happens.
But just as often, if not more so, the issue lies not with the church, but with the tentative way many people “seek” community and connection within a local church. People often passively approach community, expecting the experience of deep fellowship to happen overnight, and for it to simply fall into their lap without a lick of personal initiative. 
Check out this blogpost parodying a couple passively “seeking” community and not finding it. It’s kind of funny, but also very spot on to the American consumer culture in the evangelical church today. Our tendency is to work hard at marriage, raising children, improving job performance, continuing education, but we often expect community to simply come to us. It’s not something we feel like working at. Yet the truth of the matter is, I think it’s impossible to experience real gospel community without regularly seeking it out and applying the gospel when you’re frustrated.
Unknown's avatar

Some praise for BYU?

by
I got tired of Florida fans (especially those within my own family!) ragging me for former FSU Coach Bobby Bowden’s “forgiving” and giving “second chance” to wayward players doing things like, well, breaking the law. Mostly because they were right. In the end, FSU’s standards amounted to either a simple desire to win with the best players, or an enabling spirit which leaves college students unaccountable and only reinforces their behavior. Neither is loving.
But if you’re like me, you also have to wonder what the deal is with BYU dismissing star center Brandon Davies from their team. We don’t know anything, and its really none of our business. Yet most folks aware of the situation are intrigued because the reason for his dismissal comes down to a “violation of the honor code.” An honor code in some colleges like Presbyterian College will include things like “no cheating” or “plagiarism.”And violations often lead to dismissal from the college.
But a Mormon honor code, since it is not informed by THE gospel, but ANOTHER gospel, is naturally going to include violations which differ greatly from biblical standards. Some of them differ from not only the law of Christ and the United States, but that of common sense or “night owls.” Here’s a list of honor code commitments from BYU’s honor code office website. You can find answers to your burning questions like “how do I get a beard exception” at the website as well.
Be honest
Live a chaste and virtuous life
Obey the law and all campus policies
Use clean language
Respect others
Abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and substance abuse
Participate regularly in church services
Observe the Dress and Grooming Standards
Encourage others in their commitment to comply with the Honor Code 
Now if this lad violated the law or substance abuse, I applaud BYU. That would be a rare display of concern for integrity, even at the cost of winning. BYU has only two losses and could get a number 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. This dismissal could end up costing them a national championship.
But of course, if he were dismissed because of a cuss word or a trip to Starbucks, then, wow. I have a hard time imagining that was the case but I don’t want to slander the school or the lad. Yet in some strange way, I think I would applaud such punishment for “minor” violations. At least they are consistent. 

When a group of folks add anything to the gospel, whether it be the Book of Mormon, political affiliation, or even an unhealthy family dynamic (the unwritten rules that have to be embraced to be accepted), it will inevitably lead to rules taught by men and a concomitant slavery to them. That much will consistently be true in every situation where the gospel is subverted.

Sad for the lad, but maybe their rejection will lead to God’s approval for him in Christ, who offers us not only a new record but a new freedom.

Unknown's avatar

Hell’s Bells and and the Curse of the Irish: ammended

by
Redeemer has been going through Revelation and is actually now, finally sniffing the very end of the story of redemption. Our most recent passage and its sermon focus on the victory of Jesus in triumphal judgment, punishing the wicked by subjecting them all to a fiery place of torment. The Beast of the Sea (earthly governments) and The Beast of the Earth (false religions) may seem to triumph now, but the opposite will some day be their fate. Still today, it does seem the Beast of the Earth is plenty active here in America.
It’s certainly an apropos sermon in light of a new book out by a controversial, but very popular pastor Rob Bell on Hell called Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the fate of everyone who ever lived, where he allegedly questions whether Hell will have any folks in it. Apparently God’s love is too great; this was the same thing my bible teacher tried to make us believe at Jesuit High School. By God’s grace it didn’t seem consistent with God then, and it still doesn’t now.
Not that everything Bell has written is to be tossed, but we ought to be aware of some new stuff that appears to give folks a picture of Hell they’ve always wanted. Don’t worry about it!

I’ll check out his book in time, so for now, I’ll just point to the spirit of a “judgmentless” Christ which folks really like fine quite unoffensive.

However, John Dominic Crossan’s theology seems to me a super clear picture of someone in line with the Beast of the Earth. While Bell questions some important doctrine, the Irishmen Crossan goes a lot farther, denying the resurrection, and even the need for forgiveness. Check out this article to see someone who has one foot in academia but who tries to bring his message to the masses. CNN does a great job in being “fair and balanced” by not elevating Crossan as a hero or martyr, but also including another point of view from conservative New Testament scholar Ben Witherington.
Here a few snippets from that article and my takes:
“If you believe in a God that uses violence to “save” humanity, you’ll start believing that violence is permissible in certain circumstances, such as suicide bombing or invading other countries to spread democracy, Crossan says.”
The message of the cross and Revelation is just the opposite. God will be the one to finally bring justice. He paid for the sins of believers so we don’t need to judge others. And he will make people who don’t trust Jesus pay for their sins in Hell. Therefore we don’t need to revolt, nor do we need to pass laws which put sinners to death. Unfortunately Crossan is right in that Christianity has been used as the motivation to invade and spread democracy. But that has been a misinterpretation and misapplication of the cross.
“When we started out, people thought we were out on the left wing,” he says. “Now, I’m talking in about 30 churches a year. … A lot of this is becoming mainstream.”
Wow. Not good. Looks like Crossan and the Doobie Brothers are truly “taking it to the streets.”
Unknown's avatar

Demons and flu season

by
The other day I found myself watching a special on Hell on the History channel. On most History channel shows, or specials on other channels, they almost always draw from the same pool. Elaine Pagels, known for her expertise on the gnostic gospels, usually swims in such pools. With the exception of the deeply southern, southern Baptist 4th generation preacher, the other “scholars” (some looked a bit too young to be too scholarly) most seemed to adopt Pagel’s condescending attitude that the bible is simply an ancient text which tries to explain everything away by demonology. 
Of course, if you can look at the bible intellectually as an ancient irrelevant text, it makes it a ton easier to ignore the personal claims Christ makes on all mankind. 
But there is a problem with Elaine’s accusation; it’s just don’t find it accurate. Demons gave people some “fits,” in the N.T., but the gospel writers don’t blame everything on demons.
Matthew’s worldview included the presence and oppressive activity of demons, but certainly did not connect evil “evil” with demonic influence. Chapter 8 gives us a rather balanced picture of demons and just good old fashioned sickness. The Roman centurion is in need of Jesus to heal his daughter. So Jesus says OK, and simply states “be healed.” There were no demons to get rid of. Then in the next verse (8:14), Jesus visits Peter’s mother-in-law who had a fever. Not a demon induced fever, but simply a fever. He touches her and she’s good to go. No demonic activity recorded in either case.
Then the demons come out.
“Matthew 8:16 That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.”
Yes, Jesus did toss out many a demon who oppressed folks. But he also healed those who were sick, and it seems like there’s a distinction made here.
I think the gospel writers have a clearer picture of demons than we do. They didn’t blame their flu season solely on demons and we shouldn’t either. But they also didn’t ignore the fact that there is still a spiritual battle going on, which we often forget. Perhaps the fierceness of the battle or oppression is depends upon geography and gospel breakthrough, but it is nevertheless real (and at times can get physical as it did with Job). 
Just a good reminder that both extremes seem to miss the properly balanced biblical worldview.
Unknown's avatar

Stuff your sorry’s in a sack?

by
Many moons ago, during Seinfeld’s infamous chronologically backwards episode, George blurted out the expression, “You can stick your sorry’s in a sack.” It wasn’t an expression then, at which time he was chided, and it never really caught on. But sometimes, “sticking our sorry’s in a sack” is actually more loving than saying “sorry” during those times, albeit rare, when it really isn’t our fault.
Much of church leadership, probably due to a lack of deep belief in the gospel, fails to apologize when necessary. But at times, I’ve found myself, actually apologizing on those rare occasions when its not totally my fault. Why?
Again, let me state that the pastor should be the lead repenter in the church and the guys the lead repenters in their homes. But at other times, when the fault lies very clearly with another, we should stick our sorry’s in a sack.
Here’s a few reasons why its so important.
1.) Truthful and Loving. If it is not truly your fault, and you had no part to play, then the offender needs to have the opportunity to confess. It’s not very loving to him/her if you don’t afford him such opportunity. Few issues are black and white, and often what is necessary is for both parties to confess. But if you confess that it is entirely your fault (when it isn’t), then you are neither being truthful or loving.
2.) Self-Protection. We have all kinds of ways to protect ourselves from getting hurt. All kinds. One way to protect yourself from a harsh reaction when someone else is in the wrong, (or mostly in the wrong), is to take complete blame. This isn’t a problem simply for the co-dependents out there. While this complete apology approach actually disarms the offender, and makes him or her a bit more civil, it is often done simply out of self-protection. You can easily avoid a necessary argument (which often leaves one uncomfortable) or discussion by simply taking all the blame. It seems like a humble posture, but it often is a form of dishonest manipulation to protect oneself from getting hurt in an argument or disagreement.

Don’t stop saying sorry, but simply examine why you do so.