This entry was posted on Friday, October 27th, 2006 at 11:50 am and is filed under Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pages:
Feeds
Categories:
- Administration (6)
- Apologetics (20)
- Church Growth (13)
- Culture (128)
- Devotional (16)
- Media (9)
- Misc. (29)
- Philosophy (18)
- Podcasts (22)
- Question (10)
- Scripture (15)
- Testimony (6)
- The Church (63)
- The Outlaw Church (3)
- Theology (73)
- Uncategorized (136)
Archives:
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
Meta:
Emergent Madness
10.27.2006 by Tim Reed
There’s something about anyone who has ever identified themselves anywhere as Emergent (or even been identified by someone else) that just sets off certain people.
Here’s another one. He’s on an anti-Rob Bell crusade. Let me just say before rolling this bad boy out that I haven’t actually read Velvet Elvis, which is the book being excerpted here. So I have to trust the author that these excerpts aren’t badly butchered, which is perhaps a bit naive given the alarmist history of the Kenny Silva.
From Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis:
Humans are guilty because of our sin, and God is the judge who has to deal with our sin because he is holy and and any act of sin goes against his core nature. He has to deal with it. Enter Jesus, who dies on the cross in our place. Jesus gets what we deserve; we get what Jesus deserved (107).
I find it really, really difficult to disagree with this. This is the very nature of grace, its inherently unfair. We get what Jesus should have got, and Jesus got what we should get. Hell itself was poured out on Christ as if he was sin itself.
This is a very succinct phrasing of the gospel message itself.
Ah but leave it to Ken to find a point of disagreement. He writes:
Not exactly Rob. Jesus is God Himself and He doesn’t “deserve,” or need to earn, nor be given anything.
First lets take a look at a general definition of “deserve“. The first entry says, “to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation”, but I guess Kenny disagrees. Seems to me that Jesus merited, is qualified for, and has a claim to eternal communion with God. I’m gonna have to go with Bell on this one.
Here’s the next quote from Bell:
This reality then isn’t something we make come true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making
I should point out that old Ken never really defines what “This” is in that quote. I’m guessing it has to do with salvation, or reconciliation with God, something along those lines. Working from this assumption I will say this is some weird phrasing. I definently agree with the first part. We don’t make the reality of salvation come true by doing something, that part I’m very clear on.
The bit about choosing to live in God’s reality or our own reality is something that could be interesting, but I don’t know exactly what he means by it since Ken didn’t post enough context to really understand it. So we’ll call it a push.
What’s Ken’s take on it?
As you can see, there’s no talk of godly sorrow here, and there’s no talk of repentance involved. So if there’s nothing we need do, then everyone would already be forgiven, thus they would already be saved. And Bell makes no distinction that these are Christians here, in fact just the opposite.
I’ll be honest here, I don’t get what Kenno’s problem is. Bell is largely talking about two different choices, either Got or not-God. Of course repentance is necessary, but that’s part of choosing God, while Bell doesn’t write about it explicitly here it is at least implied given his first excerpt includes references to sin, and God not tolerating it.
And the final quote from Bell:
And this reality extends beyond this life. Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust.
I’m pretty much confused by this quote. I suspect what’s going on here is that Bell is making the point that everyone, at some point had a chance for salvation and Kenny left out the relevant context surrounding this quote. If that is what he’s saying then I don’t have a problem with it. If that’s not what he’s saying then I need a bit more of an explanation about what he means.
Of course old Kenny has a fit:
Men and women, this is simply ridiculous and should actually make the true Christian quite angry. Let’s stop pawing at Emergent Hollow Men like Rob Bell and Brian McLaren with kid gloves. First of all, if “Hell is full of forgiven people” then Bell has just told you that all of mankind was already forgiven at the Cross. This is universalism…oops, except obviously there are bad people in the world and Jesus did say the road was “narrow” so now we have to account for that.
Of course what Kenny left out is that if Bell is teaching universalism its a freaky kind in which people are in hell. Which of course, means its not universalism.
And Kenn-o doesnt’ stop there. He continues:
Ah, I know; we’ll say that some of these people choose on their own not to accept this forgiveness. Yeah, there we go. So now Bell has just told us that Christ’s atonement was not actually sufficient to save those whom He “died for” and that the Father would give Him. Can’t you see what Tozer called “the glory of fallen man” here? We choose whether or not we will accept a forgiveness that we are supposedly offered without even so much as having to repent?
And then he continues to rant:
But if in Rob Bell’s Emergent all-ee in free…almost fairytale everyone can simply “choose” to live in a “new reality” because they are already forgiven of their sin, then there would no longer be any more reason for anyone to even be separated from God. In other words, there wouldn’t be any need for man to go to Hell.
Ladies and gentlemen, Ken Silva isn’t attacking emergents here, he’s attacking (and badly misrepresenting) Arminianism. If you believe that individuals can actually choose to become disciples of Jesus Christ then Kenny boy believes that you are denying the gospel itself. In other words, if you belong to any American denomination/movement* other than certain Baptist denominations you’re on your way to hell.
I know the gate is narrow, but I kinda doubt its only as narrow as Kenny’s Sunday School class.
*By American denomination I mean denominations that were founded or only became significant in America. So the Presby/Reformed churches that inspired Kenny aren’t included in that group as they have their roots in Europe.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
[…] That sounds an awful lot like what Bell was being criticized for saying in my earlier post. […]
October 30th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Hey, this is kind of like looking in a mirror. Um, Tim…aren’t you kind of “ranting” at me? I don’t mind but if you portray me as wrong for taking it hard at Bell, wouldn’t this sort of make you look like a hypocrite, Y’know, the kind of Christian you wouldn’t want to be around?
By the way, Tim man, the Timmonator, Timenstine, I didn’t say Bell was teaching universalism. I say: “This [above] is universalism…oops, [until one realizes] except obviously there are bad people in the world and Jesus did say the road was “narrow” so now we have to [move away from universalism in order to] account for that.” peace.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Ken,
Unlike most people I don’t have a visceral reaction to the dreaded H word. I came to grips with the reality of my hypocricy a long time ago, so I don’t view a charge of hypocricy to be some sort of rhetorical weapon of mass destruction. If it were a legitimate argument we could all just replace Jesus as our messiah with Hitler, and when we stand before God point to him and say “we weren’t as bad as him”.
If I misinterpreted what your position I apologize. Although, what criticism you can have of someone who writes that hell is real, and that people will be in it is beyond me. If you don’t consider that an historic, orthodox view then I’m not sure what you consider to be orthodox in the first place.
If that’s your only correction in the way I’ve represented your writing then I wish you’d be a bit more honest about your writing. Instead of portraying yourself as some kind of emergent buster come on out as the anti-Arminian rhetorician that you are. Instead of saying that Rob Bell has undermined the gospel, tell us that everyone who isn’t Reformed is on their way to hell. Tell us how the majority of Protestants in the US are going to be nice and crispy come eternity.
Of course I suspect we both know the reason you don’t do that is because you have a great many readers who are both anti-emergent and arminian. But whatever, it is your choice in how to present yourself, isn’t it?
See ya around the interweb Dr. Kenny Poo.
Tim
October 31st, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Tim my boy,
I can feeeeeeel the love thanks. :-)
By the way, you say:
“come on out as the anti-Arminian rhetorician that you are. Instead of saying that Rob Bell has undermined the gospel, tell us that everyone who isn’t Reformed is on their way to hell. Tell us how the majority of Protestants in the US are going to be nice and crispy come eternity.”
Now I couldn’t very well do that Timmy doo, cuz I’m not, and I don’t believe your incorrect assessment above. peace.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Unlike your website or those of your colleagues you have a perfectly good forum here to correct incorrect assessments 100% censor free.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Tim,
This is good to know. By the way my website does have a contact page with a direct link to email me…
October 31st, 2006 at 8:23 pm
I have made a good faith effort to accurately represent your views. IF I have inaccurately represented them I’d prefer (and I assume you would as well).
I have to admit to being a bit perplexed. You seem far more concerned with calling me a hypocrite than with the substances of my criticisms of your views.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Tim,
I would not wish you to stay perplexed. You say: “You seem far more concerned with calling me a hypocrite than with the substances of my criticisms of your views.”
This would be incorrect. :-)
November 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Tim,
I wouldn’t want you to continue being perplexed. You say: “You seem far more concerned with calling me a hypocrite than with the substances of my criticisms of your views.”
This would be in correct.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Tim,
I wouldn’t want you to continue being perplexed. You say: “You seem far more concerned with calling me a hypocrite than with the substances of my criticisms of your views.”
This would be incorrect.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:28 am
I think what Bell is getting at in the second quote is something similar to what many Lutherans refer to as “Objective Justification,” which is the idea that in Christ, God is truly reconciled with all humanity, not just the elect or believers. Everyone’s sins were atoned for and thus forgiven on the Cross. This is then countered with “subjective justification,” which is the idea that those who do not believe reject what God has declared concerning them, and thus place themselves under the wrath of God.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Tim,
What your article said in a nutshell: “whatever Rob wrote is just fine — even if the words don’t actually communicate a fine theological message — I don’t believe Rob would say something wrong.”
July 10th, 2007 at 9:13 am
THat’s not what I wrote at all.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:20 am
Pastor Silva, you said in an above comment:
-=-
“By the way, Tim man, the Timmonator, Timenstine, I didn’t say Bell was teaching universalism. I say: ‘This [above] is universalism…oops, [until one realizes] except obviously there are bad people in the world and Jesus did say the road was “narrow” so now we have to [move away from universalism in order to] account for that.’ peace.”
-=-
I have to disagree that you what you wrote here is what you wrote elsewhere. Take all the brackets out you’ve inserted here, and I, too, read what you said as being an accusation against Bell of universalism. Further, others are picking up the cry against him as a universalist — even someone I respect very much has said so.
I doubted it. See, I read Rob’s book on sex. Not bad. Not great — I’ve got a pretty high bar when it comes to Christians writing about sex. But good. On top of that, I’m too used to people trashing emergent Christians, Christians who did NOT vote for George Bush, and various other types of Christians. These folks with their ministries of gossip and innuendo and bombast often call themselves “Cult-ministries” or “Apologists.” Apologizers is what they should be. And it sounded like maybe Rob Bell was their latest victim.
So I went on line to see. Sure enough. Just a bit of web surfing left me completely depressed. First, I discovered Bell being trashed as a universalist with YOUR quotes on another web site that has labeled the ministry I’m involved in (Cornerstone Festival) as a teacher of Wicca, and myself as a (If I remember right) a warlock of some sort due to my tattoos and piercings. I’ve been an orthodox fairly vanilla evangelical for 30 some years. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a cool tall tale.
But here you are, complaining you’ve been misintrpreted and misrepresented. Fascinatin’! Because by admitting it isn’t true here, with your brackets, you damage not only your original quotes but also your credibility altogether.
If Rob Bell is not a universalist, why use that word? If he *IS* a universalist, say so and quote him in context and at length enough to prove it. If not, please… shut up. Your gossip is maligning someone else who is only a human being. I don’t doubt Rob Bell is wrong on some things. Aren’t we all? I tire of those who seem unable to give room to their sisters and brothers to make the glorious mistakes a walk of faith often leads to. I am just *so* tired of those with a certainty about everything. I am less and less certain about anything… anything except the surpassing and unchanging grace (LOVE!) of God. Sure there’s a hell. There’s a heaven, too. And neither of them seem as real to most people, Christians included, as the complex web of relationships, sin, redemption, joy, and suffering this planet offers us 24/7.
In the end, what is going to happen — no, what has happened and is happening now — is that the theological shotgun hunters (along with the smart bomb droppers) are going to encounter a whole new world through the eyes and hearts and hands of those who simply, without a word, pass them by.
I’m still old school enough to at least tip my hat as I walk away.
Chicago / 12:19 am Monday Feb 4