How Could a Loving God also be Jealous?

The better question to ask is, "How could a loving God not be jealous?" It is the nature of love to be committed and faithful to its object. Love covenants - not under compulsion, but freely, spontaneously and lavishly. I have never yet see a bride resisting and crying out as she walks down the aisle. But is there any contract more binding, more absolute, more final than marriage? She is covenanting not only all of her finances and assets, but her body, her soul and the souls and bodies of her children to this man - and he to her. They covenant not until such and such a date, but with the ominous finality of, "'till death do us part."
But they weep not - or, if they weep, they weep for joy and not for sorrow - for who would have it any other way? What greater joy is there than to love, and also to be loved? And what true love is there which does not instantly and spontaneously long to spin for itself that cocoon of fidelity, built on bars of eternality, sealed with the iron chains of covenant?
Lovers do this joyously, gladly, exuberantly, foolishly. No one forces them: indeed, no one could stop them!
Why? Because they are in love.
But how can you say that love is not jealous? For what wife would tolerate a mistress? What husband would tolerate even a flirtatious smile to another man? How could a woman tolerate even a wandering eye of her husband? And who is not at times jealous of the very minds of their beloved?
"For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;Its flashes are flashes of fire,The very flame of the LORD." (Song of Solomon 8:6).
I have a test for you. Pick the one whom you love the most. Think about the unspoken (or spoken) covenant which is between you. What is it that you have promised to do freely, joyfully and faithfully for your beloved? Think carefully about all of the cords of love binding your hearts together in mutuality, harmony and joy. Think of your dreams together. Think of your courtship. Think of all the tenderest moments which have been between you.
Now imagine your beloved turning, pulling, snapping, and indifferentlypulling apart every covenant he has ever made with you, and rebinding his heart to another.
My belief is this: your anger at your betrayal will be directly proportionate to the love at your covenanting.
For love is inherently jealous.

Does God have the right to judge?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZB0lLIcXIA],
In this video, Todd Friel attempts to use his standard Ray Comfort-evangelism logic-train on Christopher Hitchens. (For those unaware, it is supposed to goes like this: 1) Do you think you are a sinner? "No" 2) Would you like to know what God thinks sins are? "Sure" 3) He says lying is bad. Have you ever lied? "Yes." He says lust is bad, have you done that? "Yes" (etc.) 4) Well then, according to God's standards, do you think you are a sinner? "Yes." 5) Okay then. Based on what you just said, if you died right now, do you think God would judge you as worthy of heaven or hell? "Hell." 6) Would you like to know about how God made a way for you to receive mercy, and avoid this terrible judgment? "Sure...") On Todd's web-site, he has many examples of himself using this methodology to evangelize, with varying results.
However, it did not work at all with Hitchens. It all seems to have gone south because Friel could not offer a good answer to Hitchen's first and great objection, namely, "What right has God got to judge the human race?" Because Friel's whole train of logic as based on God as judge, the rest of the conversation didn't really make sense and one can understand - although not completely endorse - Hitchen's choice to simply start hurling obscenities at the end of it.
The question "Does God have a right to judge" is a central and important one. It is very clear that Hitchens believes that nobody has a right to judge him. But is this really consistent with his own reasoning?
To summarize, Hitchens feels that several of the commandments are insultingly obvious (e.g. don't lie, steal, murder). He then rejects several of the commandments (e.g. worship the Lord only, do not covet), and he notes with disapproval that several very important commandments (e.g. love your children) are not on this list at all.
Please take careful note: he does not say, "I believe it would be convenient if these changes were made to the Ten Commandments." Rather, he says, "These changes should be made." He states that it is unethical and downright wrongthat these additions and subtractions are not made. Now, what is Hitchens implying here? Statements of desire denote a personal preference: statements of necessity, or moral obligation denote some higher power to which Hitchens is appealing.
We say that one mathematical equation is wrong, another right, and (possibly) a third is close but slightly off. In so saying, we are implying that there is some absolute standard of "mathematical correctness" out there.
And I believe that Hitchens believes that there is such a moral standard. How could Hitchen's statement that some of the commandments are wrong, some are good, and some are insultingly obvious make sense unless there is some universal code of ethics, which we are all aware of, and to which we all must appeal as the higher authority.
In Christianity, there is a very minute amount of disagreement between those who believe that Justice is an ideal which is external to God (but to which He completely conforms) and those who believe that Justice is internal to God. Either way, the Christian belief is that God is the just one, who presides over the earth.
We could ask, "Does lady justice have the right to judge?" ...but this would be a logical fallacy. Justice judges. That's what she does. Saying that justice has no right to judge is like saying that logic has no right to think. None of us fully attains to pure justice, and so we need to walk humbly: but if justice did not exist, any notion of "right" and "wrong" would completely crumble. In such a case we would be down to nothing more than personal opinion - and then we would be down to "The caveman with the biggest club decides what is right."
In the simple statement, "Hey, that's not fair!" We are asserting our belief that there is a universal standard of "fairness," which we believe is external to us and morally binding on all people. We are angry when the laws of "fairness" are violated to our hurt: we feel guilty when we violate them.
Justice is personified and explained different ways in different religions. In Christianity, Justice is personified in the person of God Himself. Therefore, the question of "Does God have the right to judge" becomes absurd. Of course He does - He is justice itself. How could He do otherwise? As the good book says, "shall not the judge of all the earth deal justly?"
If God is Justice, then He has the right to judge, and can do nothing other than judge justly. We must now, then, move to the next logical step - asking ourselves, "how will we fare under the judgment of pure Justice?"
At this point, we may get pack onto Ray Comfort's train. Rather than examining the Ten Commandments, however, we may ask Hitchens, "You have identified loving one's children as a virtue. Now, if you were before the absolute personifaction of justice, do you think you would be able to say that you have loved your children perfectly, and never hurt them unjustly?" We could then ask, "If we were imagining a place where only perfect people could go, do you think you would deserve to go there?" The answer, as Hitchens would likely admit, would be no." This would enable us to speak of the grace of Christ: although, of course, there are many other questions which would need to also be answered along the way.

Review of Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis"

Several weeks ago, I preached a sermon entitled, "What is the Gospel? A Resonse to Liberalism and the Emergent Church." (Note: I should have somehow entitled it in a way which made it clear that not ALL people who call themselves "liberal" or "emergent" have the gospel wrong, but such is the way with concise titles..) In it, I briefly mentioned Brian MacLaren and Rob Bell as people with whom I disagree. I then spent most of my time refuting their views with the historic Christian position, which is clearly evident in Scriptures, and also (although I didn't know it at the time) the clear teaching of the early church. (In Justin Martyr's "Dialogues with Trypho," for example, he said exactly the same thing as I did, although at much greater length.)
I hope to have this sermon posted soon.
In the mean time, however, I thought that since I mentioned Rob Bell and Brian MacLaren in passing, it is only fair for me to deal specifically with their works - meeting them on their own terms, and seeing what they have to say. I have done this with Brian MacLaren in a previous post: here, I have carefully listened to and reviewed Rob Bell's theology in Velvet Elvis, so as to provide a summary of my thoughts on him.
Maybe I should preface this with a few small disclaimers. The first is this: unaware that I could simply download this book for free (see here), I purchased the audio version of Rob Bell's book. Thus, while I tried to get my quotes as close as possible, I don't have many page numbers noted, and the wording may be off slightly. I had to say, "Rob bell says somewhere..." a lot, unfortunately. The second disclaimer is that it has been nearly a month since I read/listened to this book. I actually think this is somewhat advantageous, however, since I kept good notes and also because the core of Bell's message has had some time to peculate. The final disclaimer is that since Bell charges $10.00 per sermon (which, I don't mind telling you, I think is just ridicules!) for his Nooma series, I was in no way willing to either steal or dish out that money to watch it all. Thus, my impressions of Rob Bell are formed almost entirely by his main and most popular book, "Velvet Elvis." I think this is fair enough, since this really is Bell's foundational book, in which he lays out his theology. (Similarly, I don't need to read everything that John Calvin ever wrote to know what he thought - I could just read the Institutes!)
OVERVIEW
The core of Rob Bell's message is this: like a painting of Elvis, the Christian faith is a work of art - a product of human imagination, of human self-expression. However, humans of every generation express themselves very differently. Therefore, it is necessary that every generation re-imagine, or repaint the Christian faith for themselves. He clarifies that, "By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics, and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way the Christian faith is defined, lived, and explained." (p. 12) In this book, Rob Bell provides the framework for such a re-invention, then constructs a new version of Christianity and, in the epilogue, provides an impassioned plea for conversion to his faith.
IN-DEPTH OVERVIEW
"Velvet Elvis" is part systematic theology, part missionary tract. In it, Bell presents a complete, coherent system of theology. Fascinatingly, he proceeds exactly as any theologian would, in laying out their theological works:
Jump - the Prolegomenon, or "how I think you should think about theology"
Yoke - on Hermeneutics, or how to read the Bible (also touching on morality)
True - on what is the essence, or most important thing in theology
(Tassels - the gospel that doesn't fit or, the reason some people think Bell is orthodox)
Dust: Christology, or "how to think about Christ"
New: Sin, Redemption and Salvation
Good: On Morality
JUMP: ON THEOLOGY
Rob Bell begins his book by discussing a trampoline. What is important about a trampoline, he asserts, is that you can jump on it. It is the springs which allow you to jump. By "jumping" he means that they help people feel close to God, love one another and live moral lives. By "springs," he means doctrines. The doctrines themselves are more useful than true. He specifically names the Trinity, saying something to the effect of, "People have been using this particular 'spring' to jump for years. But does that mean that it is essential? Couldn't we change it for something else? I am not saying that we should - but certainly we could. If we did so, couldn't we still love God, live moral lives, etc.?" Famously, he also mentions the virgin birth in another place. If Jesus was actually found to have a human father - say, a man named "Bob," then nothing significant would change. We could still "jump" on Christianity, whether or not Jesus is born of a virgin (thus, of God), or not.
YOKE: ON HERMENEUTICS
Bell brings three items of evidence to bear, on the topic of hermeneutics. First of all, the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is full of brutality and violence. (Especially named is the slaughtering of the "innocent" people in Jericho). As mentioned in a previous post, Bell also uses such difficult passages as Psalm 137:9 to "prove" that the Bible is a conflicted book, which has no real message of its own. Third, Bell reminds the readers that Scriptures can and indeedhave been used to justify slavery and the abuse of women, among other atrocities. Fourth, he states that since every person comes to the Bible with their own perspective, it is impossible for the Bible to have a real voice of its own.
Thus, the perspective that a person, "can simply read the Bible and do what it says – unaffected by any outside influences," is "warped and toxic, to say the least" (p. 53).
He thus concludes, "It is possible to make the Bible say anything we want to, isn't it?"
Bell is not, however, saying that the Bible has nothing to say to us, or that just anybody can make it say what they want.
Rather, the idea of "a family story" is very important. Story gives meaning and direction to a community. However, he makes it clear that, "The Bible is open-ended. It has to be interpreted." Who, then, will make the decisions about interpretation? Here he invokes Jesus' words "I give you the keys of the kingdom/whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" and the fact the early church made binding decisions on various rules (e.g. circumcision) to prove that the community of Christians has the right to decide what Scriptures to keep, and which to ignore. As he says, "The Bible is a communal book. Most of the 'yous' are plural. It was written by people to people, who read it, evaluated it, accepted and rejected parts. We must see oursevles as part of this story, making decisions as a group." Committing the sin which C.S. Lewis has famously named "chronological snobbery," Rob Bell's discussion seems to sweep all of the great saints of old casually aside. Those who are now alive, and who have been welcomed into Bell's inner circle of friends are all welcome to help him "bind and loose" Scriptures, based on the authority they feel they have received from God through Jesus. As he says, "we must see ourselves and those around us as taking part in a huge discussion which has been going on for thousands of years. Because God has spoken, and everything else is commentary." Those who have gone on before, who have suffered hard and learned hard lessons about false teaching and truth are - due to their being deceased - excluded from the conversation.
Bell also mentions some of his thoughts on morality here. Because he more fully unpacks this in "New," I will leave his thoughts on that until then.
TRUE: ON THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
For those of you who have been reading along in my posts, you will be noticing a very marked similarity between Bell's theology so far and classical liberalism, (as summarized very briefly here, or written of at length here). On this point, however, Bell becomes almost stereo-typically a follower of Schleiermacher. What is the essence of Christianity?
Two quotes are highly illuminating:
"You have to understand that I started out playing in bands, back when alternative music was 'alternative' I understood music to be the raw art form that comes from your guts. Do it yourself. Strip it down. Bare bones. Take away all the fluff and the hype. This ethos heavily shaped my understandings of what church should be like: strip everything away and get down to the most basic elements. (98)"
For Schleiermacher, religion was about the "feeling of absolute dependence:" for Bell, it is about digging deep into the human soul and "keeping it real" - which is just about the same thing.
A second quote is also helpful: "Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who's living rightly?" (p. 21.)
In this subtle turn of phrase, Bell underscores his basic theological premise: getting right with God is not about believing something, but about doingsomething.
Bell's religion, then, is about looking deep within one's self for religious feelings, and about doing good things by which to win God's favor.
TASSELS: THE CHAPTER THAT DOESN'T FIT
I found "Tassels" to be a highly confusing chapter. In it, Bell says something to the effect of, "Yes, of course, I know that Jesus died for my sins, and that I must trust in Him for my salvation..." He then goes on to discuss many very helpful ministry tips on burnout and "shooting your super-whatever" (in context - not taking one's self too seriously), on taking sabbath rests, and many other helpful points. If this chapter was all that Bell had written, one would certainly not find anything wrong with him. However, in the following chapters, we quickly see how he is able, on the one hand, to affirm that he holds orthodox Christian doctrine and on the other to state that people can be saved outside of Christianity, and that Christianity is all about works.
DUST: CHRISTOLOGY
To me, the most surprising aspect of Bell's book is that he seems to be rolling back Christianity to a pre-Christian stage, that is, to Judaism. He writes, "Before all the big language and grand claims, the story of Jesus was about a Jewish man, living in a Jewish village, among Jewish people, calling them back to the way of the Jewish God." He says later, "Remember, Jesus was a Torah-observing Jew who obeys the TANAK (that's fancy-talk for the Old Testament) word for word..." He says also, "Remember that Jesus said, 'Everything that I have learned I passed on to you.' Did Jesus go to school and learn like the other kids his age? [Thus - isn't he here saying that "all I received" refers only to his instruction in a Jewish synagogue?]" In summary, then, Bell seems to think that Jesus did not "fulfill" (Mat. 5:17) the Old Covenant and in this way make it "obsolete" (Heb. 8:13): rather, he called people back into it.
Here would be a good place to link up with thoughts which were omitted from "Yoke." Bell explains that Rabbi's would each produce their own unique commentaries on how to apply the TANAK to their lives. They would themselves live by these lengthy sets of rules, and would eventually amass followers. Those who wished to follow a certain Rabbi would "take on the yoke" of that rabbi. Thus, Jesus was actually teaching a set of rules, a new way of living, just like all the other rabbis were. The mere fact that a rabbi selected a person, however, is highly significant. The rabbi selected people because hereally believed those individuals could bear his distinctive yoke. Thus, when Jesus called His disciples - and, by extension, you and I - to follow Him, he was in effect proclaiming "you are able to do everything I will tell you to do, and to live perfectly by my standards." Bell elsewhere comments on the story of Peter walking on the water. Peter did not fall because he stopped trusting in Jesus - after all, Jesus wasn't sinking! He fell because he doubted himself.
Jesus has faith in our ability to work our way to perfection, as good Jews: we must have confidence in our abilities too.
In the most famous portion of his book, Bell questions what difference it would have made whether Jesus had really been born of a virgin, or had been begotten by some guy named "Bob." One wonders why Bell does not just come out and say that he does not think that Jesus is really God, the only begotten of the Father, the Second Member of the Trinity? For one thing, because in Bell's theological system, it does not really matter whether Jesus was God or not: we are saved by our own efforts, by (in some way) being good Jews, not by anything which Jesus may or may not have done.
NEW: ON SIN, REDEMPTION & SALVATION
In a very Kantian statement, Bell subtly dismisses the idea of original sin by questioning, "Did the story of Adam and Eve happen, or is it happening?" After all, we all feel temptations, and we all sin many times: the story of Adam and the snake is "our story" too.
If there is no such thing as original sin, in which all died, can there be an atonement, in which many were made alive? (See Romans 5)
Utilizing Bartian (that is, based on Karl Barth) theology, Bell writes that when Jesus said, "I will draw all men unto me," he really meant all men. In other words, His work was effective to save all, whether they have heard of His free gift or not. He uses the analogy of eating supper, and having the waitress come and announce to your table that your tab has been paid for. One can either live in the reality that their supper is paid for, or they can live in the reality that it is not paid for - the choice is yours. How is this decision made? Bell explains that, "Heaven is full of people whom God love and died for. Hell is full of people whom Jesus loved and died for. The difference is how they lived their lives."
Bell recounts with frustration a counseling session with a new Christian, racked with guilt. Doesn't he realize, Bell quires, that guilt and self-condemnation is out of place for a Christian or (to be consistent) with any human being? After all - the price has already been paid! We must now live as though we are redeemed people. When we mess up, we must admit it, confess it, make amends when and where we can, and move on to try to live a Godly life. What does this life look like?
As a guiding light, Bell presents the image of God within us all. Bell recounts that a very significant milestone occurred for him in a counseling office, where the counselor told him that his one goal in life was, "the relentless pursuit of who God made him to be. Everything else is sin, which must be repented of." Not being true to one's self (that is, to the image of God within, or to what God made a person to be) is sin: being really true to one's self is righteousness.
This is the essence of Bell's morality: understanding that all people, everywhere, are made in the image of God. Although there is sin in the world, Jesus died to defeat sin. Therefore, by simply living moral lives, every human may earn their way to God. This begs the question: what is morality for Bell?
GOOD: ON MORALITY
Considering Bell's insistence on Jesus as a Jew, one would think that he would call people in this chapter to eat kosher, to meet on Saturdays, etc. However, this is not consistent with his evolving model. Those were commands which have relevance for "back then." Today, we have other pressing needs - specifically, environmentalism, world compassion initiatives, and giving to the poor at home. In Bell's final chapter, then, he hammers hard on these issues. This is likely a very good way to conclude the book, because his ethics are very relevant and important, and few would disagree with him on what he says in this chapter.
Historic Christianity would only object (and object very strongly) that good works are to be the fruit of a new life, not the grounds of one's salvation, which is what Bell seems to make it.
Interestingly, though, in another chapter Bell talks about officiating the wedding of a non-Christian couple who were living together and "now wanted to make it official." He never condemned their sin of fornication, and called their wedding - officiated in the sacred space of nature and followed by a lengthy dance, including much alcohol - "the most sacred event I have ever experienced." Personal morality, especially on sexual ethics, does not seem to be a priority for Bell - and on this too historic Christianity would strongly disagree with him.
(THE MISSING CHAPTER: ON WHO IS GOD?)
To write a really consistent systematic theology, Bell should have written a chapter on "Theology Proper," or who is God. Bell's conception of God is vague partially, I suppose, because he doesn't think that doctrine is important. Perhaps he is also aware that to clearly and distinctly express his opinions about God would once and for all prove that he is presenting a non-Christian set of beliefs. Whether fairly or not, the image of God which I kept coming up with was "the health-and-wealth-god of the indie-rocker." Like a health-and-wealth God, the God of Rob Bell is a god who makes no demands, has no vantage-point of absolute truth, and demands no worship or obedience. For that matter, Bell's God even has trouble with basic communication. Rather than orienting the cosmos around Himself, Bell's god is a god who lives to serve. He does not bring endless riches in his wings, however, but endless poetic and artistic self-expression: as I said, this is the god of the indie-rocker, not the god of the yuppie.
This may be a caricature - but, to be fair, Bell doesn't present his views concretely, so the reader is left to piece them together for themselves. This is what I have gotten out of his work.
DOES ROB BELL GRASP THE GOSPEL?
This question seems redundant, but it is always helpful to provide clear statements in communication. No, I do not believe that Rob Bell grasps the gospel. The Gospel - just so that we are not in any way confused - is this:
1. Our first parents sinned, and in so doing doomed the human race (Gen. 1, Rom. 5)
2. Jesus came to die in our place, so that we could have new life through Him (Rom. 6)
3. After receiving this new life, God equips us to live a new life in His strength (the book of James)
4. After death, we are saved by God's grace and our perseverance in it (see the end of Revelations, 1 Corinthians 15, etc.)
Christianity, rightly understood, is a religion of grace. We get to heaven not because of what we have done, but because of what he has done for us.Because we live in the knowledge of our totally undeserved redemption, we live new lives.
By contrast, all the other religions of the world - as well as false Christianity - relies on legalism.
1. We are not very bad sinners.
2. Jesus came to give us an example of how to live.
3. We must try really hard to follow Jesus' example
4. Jesus will probably give us a break and let us into heaven.
This approach leads to despair or pride. Pride when we think we are "making it," despair when we know we are not. There is also no real way of dealing with "really bad sins," and people tend to super-emphasize one or two "religious works" to try to counter-balance all of their sins. In Pharisaic Judaism, the emphasis was on Kosher: so long as one lived and ate clean, people were free to be full of all sorts of evil thoughts, lusts, etc. in their hearts. For Rob Bell, the emphasis seems to be on environmentalism, and some compassion initiatives. So long as one recycles and gives a bit, it seems, one need not worry about the internal state of their heart, whether their sexual lives are "moral," or where they will spend eternity.
To put it concretely: This is not the gospel.
WHY IS ROB BELL SO POPULAR?
Like many, I saw a Nooma video by Rob Bell long before I read this book. I thought that the message itself was kind of weak, but the graphics were very flashy. I liked the concept of putting so much visual-arts into a sermon and, since I didn't find anything really objectionable in the material, I decided that Rob Bell was a decent pastor, who only had one off-video. I figured he was trying to make a real difference in the world by presenting the age-old gospel in a relevant new way (as opposed to presenting a new faith, with the trappings and vocabulary of the old gospel, which is what he actually does). I think this is the experience of a lot of people. They just haven't bitten dipped deep enough to know that the apple is rotten.
I think Bell is also popular because Evangelical teaching is so very weak. Pastors don't confront serious issues like the relation of the Old Testament to the new, on cults and why the gospel is so very important, and how to read the Bible accurately. On the other side, individual Christians don't do any work either, and complain when a sermon goes over twenty minutes, and actually makes them think or (horror or horrors!) gives them some meaty homework. In the words of John Piper, many people never grow beyond a sunday-school faith. When they find their sunday-school faith is unable to come up with answers to their university-level mind, they abandon the faith or listen to someone like Bell who at least has SOME answer to their questions. Even if they are the wrong ones, he is the only one who is speaking on these topics, so who is to say the different?
"My people are destroyed for want of knowledge."
IS EVERYTHING THAT ROB BELL SAYS BAD?
It is always the half-lies which are hardest to distinguish from the truth: the full-lies are easy.
Many things which Rob Bell says are good, and they fill a void which evangelicals are missing (this is especially true of environmentalism). If you read only TASSELS and GOOD, you would probably actually benefit from this book. There are some helpful tips on pastoral ministry, and some good encouragements to environmentalism and compassion initiatives. It is good to respect what is right in the sight of all men (Rom. 12:17): however, believing that we will be saved from the wrath of God by our own efforts is both foolish and dangerous.
SHOULD I BE WORRIED ABOUT MY FRIEND? I HEARD HE/SHE ACTUALLYLIKES ROB BELL!!
In a conversation related by Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson mentions why Bell seems to have such an appeal to young evangelicals. It is because (to summarize) many people listen to him without really buying into his system, but only taking his moral exhortations (for example, to be environmentally friendly, etc.) to heart. This has been my experience: I think this is how I would have read Bell's book a couple years ago, before doing more research on Liberalism. (Note: my research on Liberalism has been exceedinglyhelpful in understanding Rob Bell. For an overview of my findings and links to more in-depth materials, see here)
I also think that a lot of people listen to one or two sermons, decide they like a person, and then (when that person is said to be a heretic) will defend that person to the death, without ever really looking into what that person believes, or what the charges are. These are people who bring a pail of whiteout to the Bible, and erase every verse which has to do with avoiding false teachers, then highlight and underline "thou shalt not judge" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" - as though not confronting sin in one's friend was the kindest thing which could be done.
However, I would warn the reader against heretic-hunting anybody who has Bell on their shelf. In my experience, someone who is into Bell has been turned off to normal church: they probably need a loving example of brotherly/sisterly companionship and encouragement in the faith more than they need to be directed to an article such as this.
DOES ROB BELL WORRY YOU?
In the 1920's a large portion of the church was carved away by Liberalism into what I would now describe as a non-Christian manifestation of the Christian faith. (Read more about that especially in my post, The Man Who Wrote Christianity and Liberalism). Many bitter battles were fought between the "Fundamentalists" and "Liberals" over the essentials of the faith, but in the end the Liberals took over most of the major denominations and seminaries. In the writings and workings of Rob Bell, Brian MacLaren and others like him, I believe that this same spirit of Liberalism is making a deep and bold cut deep into the territory of Evangelicalism. Although Satan could not have their fathers, he is content to steal away the children of Fundamentalism through the words of people like Rob Bell.
I am not sure whether to "worry" or not, since I am only a servant, and God is in charge. However, I definitely think that the issue of Liberal Emergent teaching is far more toxic and dangerous to true faith than many people give it credit for. It is worth some really serious investigation, and worth humble bloggers like myself taking a few minutes aside to review, critique and reject false teachers such as Rob Bell.

Reflections on an Interview where Jennifer Knapp "Comes out of the Closet"

I had really intended on spending only a few minutes at the computer, then "turning in." However, in my online travels (trying to make good on a promise to Don to hear the other side of the homosexuality debate), I came across the following YouTube vid, in which a popular Christian singer, Jennifer Knapp recently announced that she is a lesbian. The interview which I saw has got my mind rolling, and I can't sleep 'till I get my thoughts out!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Pm_pPYkYA]
Without meaning to (no, I have no desire whatsoever to be in this person's seat!! I absolutely cannot think on the spot, and dread situations like this) I placed myself in the position of "pastor Bob." As my sleepless mind rolled, I thought of answers I would give to the thorny questions hurled his direction.
Larry King: Do you think this woman is going to hell?
(A good answer): I don't know who is going to hell. God is the judge of that. And God is a God of justice, but also a God of great grace and mercy. He showed mercy to me even though I have done some very terrible things, and am still very imperfect. I do not know whether Jennifer Knapp is going to hell. I do know, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sinful action.
Larry King: So you are judging her.
(A good answer): Let's pretend we are all children for a moment, and we have the same father. It would be wrong for me, as a child, to set myself up as the judge, to say "you have done such and this, and these are the consequences of your actions." My judging would not be wrong because the act of judging is wrong - we believe in justice, we believe in right and wrong, we believe in judges - but because this is not my job. I am only a fellow sibling - I have no higher status. I have no right to judge. However, if we all know that our father is coming home soon, and that he has certain expectations and instructions, it is the duty of children to remind one another of their father's rules before he comes home. It is not "judging" to remind someone of the rules of the true Judge, so that they may avoid the consequences of disobedience.
Larry King: And you think one of those rules is that homosexuality is wrong?
(A good answer): Yes.
Larry King: And for that God would send a person to hell?
(A good answer): As I said, God is the judge. It's not for me to make that call - it never will be. However, God has revealed to us that there will be many surprised people in the judgment day. Many will say, "Lord lord, I have many wonderful things in Your name," and He will say, "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." (Matthew 7:23) So part of this not entering into heaven is practicing lawlessness. I think Scriptures are quite clear that homosexuality is one example of lawlessness.
Jennifer Knapp: But why are you judging me for my homosexuality? Don't you ever lie, cheat, steal? Don't you do bad things too? What makes you think you are going to heaven, and I am not?
(A good answer): All of my hope is in the righteousness of my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ..
Jennifer Knapp: ...So is mine!
(A good answer): Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments," (John 14:15). In Romans 6, and in Hebrews 6 and 10, it talks about abusing the cross and blood of Christ in order to continue sinning. This is not possible for a Christian! The issue here is not about homosexuality being a big sin, and lying being a small sin. (I recognize that there are political and social interests at work which have unfortunately blown this particular issue out of proportions, so that we are having this conversation on national television instead of someplace more appropriate. Nevertheless, this issue isnot about homosexuality being a bigger sin.) The issue is about theunrepentant attitude. I recently confronted a man on his stubborn unwillingness to forgive a certain person. I showed him the Scriptures, and I told him, "Don't you realize that Jesus said, 'If you do not forgive, I will not forgive you'? (Matthew 6:14-15) Don't you realize that by not giving grace to others, you are blocking grace for yourself?" I believe that this person was just as much - if not more so - in danger of hell as you yourself are. We all stumble, we all fail, we all make mistakes - but when we resolutely declare, "I have decided that this is right, and I am going to do this no matter what the Bible says," this is when we put ourselves in great danger.
Jennifer Knapp: I have spiritual accountability. I am under spiritual authority - and that is not you. You have no right to speak to me about this issue...
(A good answer): If you do not want me to talk to you about this, I will not bother you anymore. I will continue praying for you, and I hope you know I believe every word that I said, and I truly am concerned for you!
Larry King: Concerned? Concerned because you think she is going to hell?
(A good answer): Yes, that is where the evidence seems to lead.
Larry King: This God of yours seems very exclusivist. I thought God was a God of love?
(A good answer): God is a God of justice and of love. In His justice, He has recognized that we all deserve eternal consequences for our actions. In His grace, He made a way of escape. Love and truth have kissed at the cross (Psalm 85:10) However, He said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matthew 7:13-14) Part of entering that narrow gate is doing our very best to follow the commandments written in the Bible, even though they are at times very hard.
In all fairness, I did not write this book: however, it is my job - as it is of everyone who calls themselves a Christian - to be as faithful to it as we can. I hope that is what I have done here today.
Larry King: Do you think I am going to hell?
(A good answer): Mr. King, in all honesty I don't watch very much TV and I haven't watched your show very much. If this is a serious question, and you would like to examine your life in the light of Scriptures I would very much like to take the time to do that, at whatever time is convenient for yourself.