November 11th, 2009

If this comes true, are we ready?

At some point in the twenty-first century, Christians in Africa will become more numerous than Christians in any other single continent & more important than ever before in articulating a global Christian identity in a pluralist world”

Kevin Ward (found in quotations from the book “The Changing Face of Christianity” edited by Lamin Sanneh and Joel A. Carpenter, 122).

Will our Christian-Western-centric pride be hurt? Are you ready to start reading commentaries, theology books, and take church advice from Africans? Sometimes I think we can be more racist that we realize.

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Theology | 1 Comment »
October 12th, 2009

Our DNA seems to know that it is wrong for babies to die, for disease to pillage our bodies, for government to abuse those they are called to protect. The earliest literature we possess speaks of humanity’s quest for immortality. Humanity somehow knows that it should not die, even though in all remembered experience humanity has died. And this sixth sense is not restricted to those who believe. No, all of the sons of Adam and daughter of Eve somehow know that Adam is not what they were supposed to be, that there is something profoundly wrong with the world as it is. I believe this sense is evidence of the residual presence of the image of God in humanity. The image is broken and marred, but it remains. And it is this aspect of humanity that recognizes the “wrongness” of this world and continues to cry out for the world as it should be–Eden.

The Epic of Eden by Sandra L. Richter

Written by: James
Posted in Church, Theology | No Comments »
July 2nd, 2009

I read an article from the newest “Christian Research Journal” yesterday titled “Why I Am a Calvinist” by Kevin DeYoung. It’s one of those articles that if you were to highlight it, you’d end up highlighting the whole page. Here’s a specific excerpt that resonated with me:

I’d like to think that we are Calvinists because of what we see in the Bible. We see a God who is holy, independent, and unlike us. We glory in God’s goodness, that He should save miserable offenders, bent toward evil in all our faculties, objects of His just wrath. We rejoice in God’s electing love, which He purposed for us before the ages began. We are grateful for God’s power by which He caused us, without our cooperation, to be born again and enabled us to believe His promises. We take comfort in God’s all-encompassing providence, whereby nothing happens according to chance, but all things–prosperity or poverty, health or sickness, giving or taking away–are sent to us by our loving heavenly Father.

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Theology, scripture | No Comments »
November 15th, 2008

Rob Bell scares me. His Nooma videos are very popular in most youth group settings. Time Magazine calls him the “Hipper-Than-Thou-Pastor.” He pastors a large church in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Mars Hill Bible Church (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA). His claim to fame is his book “Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith.” He’s cool–he’s popular–and that’s why he scares me.

Many of the bloggers in the sphere trash on Rob Bell, deem him as a heretic, and when you further question them, you find out they haven’t even read the book. They simply pull quotes they’ve found on other blogs, take them out of context, and decide to call him a heretic. Rob Bell’s name is surrounded by much controversy, and I received numerous hits from search engines of people trying to figure out the “heresy” that surrounds Bell’s name from my last post that simply mentioned his name. With that said, my goal is to be open and honest about what I’ve learned about Bell, and not go to either extreme (i.e. star struck, Rob Bell fan boy or the fundamentalist pastor who’s anti-all emerging church trends). But after reading Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith, hearing Bell out completely and attempting to give Bell a fair trial–I have decided that he’s truly a major threat to the church of the next generation.

Before cracking into the book, I’d like to begin to address a Nooma video that came out about the time that I began my analysis of Rob Bell. I believe it was titled, “open,” and here’s a transcription that scared me a little,

“God’s desire is that the divine energy that made the world would flow between us and in the process draw us closer together. Prayer is tapping into the same energy that formed the universe. That’s why people say they can feel prayer, it’s because we can. Praying connects us to the people and things we are praying for. Prayer enlarges our perspective. Praying gives us a bigger heart. Praying makes us feel things. Praying changes thing, but prayer changes us. Praying makes us better people.”

This made me nervous because it seemed to have new age connotations. Almost reminded me of Star Wars. But like much of what he says, it sounds iffy, but he never says anything strong enough to deem him as a heretic.

Perhaps what gives the previous quote more support is that the footnotes of Bell’s Velvet Elvis say, “For a mind-blowing introduction to emergence theory and divine creativity, set aside three months and read Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything.” (Velvet Elvis, page 192, footnote 143) Who is Ken Wilber? Pop his name in Google and you’ll find all sorts of crazy things. Here’s the introduction that Wikipedia gave,

Kenneth Earl “Ken” Wilber Jr. (b. January 31, 1949, Oklahoma City, U.S.), is an American author who writes on psychology, philosophy, mysticism, ecology, and spiritual evolution. He has been described as New Age, although his writings are critical of much of the New Age movement. His work formulates what he calls an “integral theory of consciousness.” He is a leading proponent of the integral movement and founded the Integral Institute in 1998.

While Wilber has practiced Buddhist meditation methods and the teachings of Madhyamika Buddhism and of Nagarjuna in particular underpin his work, Wilber does not self-identify as a Buddhist.

Apparently the guy can even stop his brainwaves, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4. He says, “If you want to know God, you’ve got to get your brain out of the way first. It’s just one big stupid filter….” It would be hard to encourage anyone to learn from the teachings of Rob Bell if he’s getting his insights from people like Ken Wilber.

One of his main movements argues that doctrines cannot be held on the same level as scripture (this is true). Further, we cannot question scripture, but we can and should question doctrines (also true). However, he uses the example of a wall as one’s basis of belief in doctrines. He says that if you take out some of the foundational bricks in your wall of doctrines, then the whole wall will fall. He goes farther to say,

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. As what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? (Velvet Elvis, 26)

He later goes on to say that he actually believes in the virgin birth but he asks, “what if?” His point is that we should not hold to doctrines strongly because if one of the bricks (like the virgin birth) crumbles then the whole wall will fall. This is part of the problem with Rob Bell. He doesn’t hold to doctrines. You can’t discern what he actually believes. I am not ready to call him a heretic merely because I can’t figure out what he actually believes. Because he does not hold to doctrines, and you can’t figure out his stance on biblical issues. Try going to Mars Hill Bible Church’s web site, www.marshill.org, and try finding out what they believe. I would not be quick to take his teachings to heart. I have a problem with him saying that the virgin birth isn’t essential to the Christian faith… yet I also understand he was trying to use it as an example. I think he choose a poor choice in an example, but in what he said, I can’t actually deem him as a heretic for what he says in it’s entirety.

I believe the title “heretic” is very a strong charge, and should only be used with complete certainty. Some people, such as Benny Hinn, require only a few minutes of research to pass judgement. But Rob Bell is a different story simply because he does not hold to doctrines, and does not state anything definitively. I can say that Bell believes in scripture, but I can’t define what that means… and I’m not sure Bell could either. In order for me to call Bell a heretic, I would need to do further research, and I may not even come up with an answer then. However, I strongly trust the theology of Mark Driscoll (founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA). My friends Doug and Rebecca directed me to a lecture Mark did about the emerging church where he addressed the Rob Bell issue. You can find it here. Mark deems Bell as a heretic–Mark is clear about his theology–I trust Mark–and I’m likely to take the research that Mark has done rather than continuing more of my own time and energy on this subject.

Would I recommend the reading? My answer is yes and no. No in that Velvet Elvis is so close to heresy that it isn’t the type of material a Christian should allow to shape their theology. Yes, in that if you are a pastor, and you minister to people below 30, you should know of “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and be able to express why the church needs to stay away from Rob Bell’s material. If you fit the pastoral description, then I would not only suggest that you read the book, but say it is a must–and give you an even stronger charge if you are in the practice of using the Nooma videos. Or if you have somehow read this entire entry and are still planning on using Nooma videos… please at least read his book “Velvet Elvis” and judge his theology for yourself in light of the context. You owe it to those who look to you for theological direction.

It’s scary to think of the people who watch Nooma videos, turn around and read his book(s), and ultimately open themselves for liberal theology that is inspired by the new age movement, and perhaps ultimately find nothing wrong with the teachings of Ken Wilber.

Resources & Bibliography:

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Theology | 5 Comments »
October 14th, 2008

No other relationship comes close to this one. It is utterly unique. The Son is absolutely unique in the affections of the Father. He is the “only begotten” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:9). There is the Son, by eternal generation, and there are other “sons” by adoption. “When the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son…to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Galatians 4:4-5). Only in “receiving” Jesus as the Son are others empowered to become “children of God” (John 1:12). Jesus often referred to God as “my Father” and “the Father,” but he never referred to God as “our Father” except once, when teaching the disciples how they should pray (Matthew 6:9). Once he used the remarkable expression, “my Father and your Father…my God and your God” (John 20:17). The relationship between God the Father and his eternal Son is utterly unique.

The Pleasures of God by John Piper, page 32

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Theology | No Comments »
September 12th, 2008

I haven’t liked this book for the longest time. But it’s nice to see others who hold some theological weight (like John MacArthur) comment on the book. This book is one of the biggest threats to modern day Christian theology and culture. It’s worth 6 minutes of your time.

Written by: James
Posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Theology | 4 Comments »
August 20th, 2008

I’m reading “Worship Matters” by Bob Kauflin for at class at MBU. I’m really enjoying it and you’ll probably find little posts like this here and there. But I thought I’d share this quote I really like. Feel free to contribute/share any thoughts.

John Owen, a Puritan pastor of the seventeenth century, wisely wrote, “We must not allow ourselves to be satisfied with vague ideas of the love of Christ which present nothing of his glory to our minds.” Vague ideas of God doesn’t serve us or the people we lead. If most of our songs could be sung by Buddhists, Muslims, or Hindus, it’s time to change our repertoire.

Of course, songs aren’t meant to be systematic theology. Songs are poetry. They include figurative images and creative metaphors. Trees clap. Oceans roar. But our songs don’t have to be obscure or ambiguous. They should help us accurately identify and praise the only true God who has revealed himself in the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin, page 62

Written by: James
Posted in Church, Music, Theology, worship | No Comments »
May 27th, 2008

This last Sunday we sang a song called “You Are My King” and I took a few minutes to attempt to refine the church’s understanding of worship. I am concerned with the modern day church because songs tend to be birthed that imply, “Our [the church's] salvation is the central purpose of salvation.” While I believe that salvation is the reason why Jesus had to die on the cross, we cannot say that it’s at the heart.

“Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” (John 12:27-28, ESV)

Above all, Christ died so that the Father would be glorified. Now, Christ did still die for us. Christ died because he loves us. None of these thoughts change. The only difference is that when you view it as “Christ died for us above all,” you then are worshiping self. When you say, “Christ died for us… but above all so that God would be glorified,” we then celebrate salvation but it is directed on God.

There’s another song that talks about what Christ did for us, and it says, “that’s why we praise Him and that’s why we sing.” This implies that salvation is the reason we worship, so if Christ did not die for us, we wouldn’t worship Him. However, if man never sinned and all was perfect… would we still worship God? The answer is a resounding “YES!” You see, our worship should NOT be conditional. The central purpose that we worship God is because God is God. Perhaps that song in reference was trying to say, “that’s why we can worship God.” This would be correct (but I still won’t use it in church because that’s not what the song says). There is a subtle difference that is basically the difference between worshiping the One True God, and idol worship. That’s why we can worship God, but it is not why we worship God.

With all that said I told the church that I really struggled with singing “You Are My King” for a while, and even took it off of song list because I hadn’t made up my mind about it. The song focuses very strongly on salvation, but I decided that it’s scriptural because we should celebrate. The song is actually a good example of a song that says, “that’s why we can worship You.”

Written by: James
Posted in Church, Theology, leadership, worship | 2 Comments »
  • Media


  • Credits

  • Subscribe


  • Join the discussion

  • login




  • Creative Commons License