Corby Stephens

Even if you just casually watch the news, especially the entertainment news, you have probably heard about the movie “The Golden Compass.” It made the news recently, not because it’s a sci-fi adventure with lots of great computer effects, but because it is supposed to be written by an atheist who want to lead kids away from God. In his series of books, the author has God killed in order for people to have their freedom.

I have not read the books nor seen the movie. My interest in bringing it up has to do with the general public’s perceptions of entertainment, the symbolism that is used in movies, and the intent of the original source for the movie, whether it be a book, a play, or just an original idea from a screenwriter.

What spawned this was a headline from FoxNews.com that reads “‘The Golden Compass’ is a whopping success — and not anti-Christian.” I thought, “Well, I hope this person knows what they are talking about. If it really isn’t anti-Christian, I’d like to go see it.” Then I read the article. The writer opens with,

“The Golden Compass” is here. After being treated to tantalizing bits and pieces, I’ve seen the whole movie, a sumptuous two-hour adventure that has as much to do with being anti-Christian or Catholic as “Flipper.” So much for that.”

OK. So far just statements, no evidence. I wonder what they are going to say? I wonder what kind of discernment this person has? I knew as soon as I read this.

“Kidman, in particular, is back to business, slithering around, having a grand time as Mrs. Coulter, the nominal villain in little Lyra’s bizarre world where everyone has a “daemon” or talking animal by their side that represents their personality.

Lyra’s daemon is a wildcat that can become a lion, while Kidman’s is a sleek, dangerous monkey, and Craig’s is a snow leopard. Yes, the animals all talk and are wise and wily and a lot of fun as they morph from one to another.”

A daemon. A wise talking animal that represents a personality. Can you say, “Demon?!” Can you say, “Spirit guide?” Wow! You can’t get much more anti-Christian than that. Well you can, if you really try. And if the stories do include killing God, then you’ve pretty much gotten there.

“”The Golden Compass” is a fable, and it can only be viewed as such. Like “The Lord of the Rings,” it’s about an object everyone wants — in this case, the compass — which has mystical powers and promise of salvation.”

While it may be a fable or work of fiction, if the article had done any research on the author of the books he would know that there is an intent behind it. It is a stark contrast between “The Lord of the Rings” where Tolkien specifically wrote that it is purely fantasy, there is no allegory or point or parallel intended.

“Like “The Chronicles of Narnia,” “Compass” is meant to entertain and disturb children of all ages”

This guy really has not done his homework. If he knew anything about Lewis he would know that Lewis also had an intent behind “Narnia” and it was the opposite of “Compass.” Lewis was trying to draw people toward God. While that may not have been the intent of the producers of the movie or various TV adaptations, it was the intent of the source. The same thing must be taken into consideration concerning “Compass.” There is an intentional message behind it the writing, even if that intentions isn’t shared by the movie makers. Ironically, the article ends with this.

“More importantly, “The Golden Compass” is a large-scale thoughtful fantasy, something to get lost in during a holiday film season when there’s a lot more realistic doom and gloom to contemplate.”

The idea of people getting lost is exactly the intent of the author of the books. And using the Christmas season of all things to communicate an anti-God message is tragic. It only leads to more doom and gloom.

When considering entertainment for yourself and your family, consider the intent of the source of the work. Consider the message that is being communicated. Consider the characters/tools /methods used to communicate that message. When things are reviewed as “harmless fun” one’s radar should go off. Take care put on your armor as you go about your Christmas business. It’s a prime opportunity for wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I suppose this could be as generic or specific as one could want it to be. I say that because I have a specific topic in mind because of a specific scriptural example, but the principle could be applied to other areas. I’m teaching Acts 13:4-12 this weekend. Having done some reading on the history of Cyprus some interesting things come to light as to Barnabas’ and Saul’s ministry there, specifically in Paphos. Basically they walked into porn central and apparently came out unscathed. Well, all but John Mark. It’s an interesting example of being in the world but not of it.

It’s important to keep in mind verses 1-3. The Spirit Himself specifically set these two guys apart. They fasted and prayed. They got their armor on. They got ready to go into hostile territory with the message of peace. Paphos was the home of the temple to Aphrodite, the goddess of love and sex. There were “priestesses” who “served” in the temple for those who wanted to worship. In fact, every maiden had to “serve” in the temple before she could marry. It was said that those who were ugly would wait as long as four years before they were chosen to serve and be free to marry. There was a giant statue at the temple, but not of a person, of a phallus.

This is where Barnabas and Saul were sent.

They didn’t retreat. They didn’t say, “We can’t go there, don’t you know what goes on there? We might be tempted or sin in our hearts by feeling lust.” They prayed, fasted, and got ready before going in, and this after they were called. Where am I going with this? Lemme tell ya.

We tell people to put on the full armor of God, that our warfare is not against flesh and blood. We tell people to be in the world but not of it. We tell people to go ye into all the world. But what tends to happen is that we retreat into our comfort zones and rarely engage the world where it is. We do this in the name of holiness, not wanting to be defiled by the things of the world. That’s a good desire, but it’s lousy evangelism. Why do we do this? Do we really trust our armor? We say “go” but do we really mean it?

This is why admire people like those at xxxchurch.com. As I understand their story, they heard the call to reach out to those in the porn industry and to those who struggle with pornography. They go to national porn conventions, buy a booth, set up shop, give out thousands of Bibles and witness to these people who are deceived and trapped in that industry. And they see results. Is that kind of thing for everyone? Absolutely not. It is for those who are called and those who are equipped and prepared for that work.

When I was at the Univ. of Wash., the third quarter of my first year and the first quarter of my second year I worked at a sorority. You know who lives in a sorority right? College chicks. Usually pretty hot ones. But I didn’t just work there, I lived there. I was a “house boy.” In fact, four of us lived there full time. It was during this time in my life that I really had a vision and a passion for God. I was closer to Him than I ever had been before. Earlier in my life I really struggled with porn. Now I’m living in a house of college women. And you know what? While I was living there I experienced no lust. None. One time, in the laundry room, I walked in on a girl wearing not much more than a t-shirt, if she was wearing anything more than that at all (after all, she was doing laundry). Honest to goodness, I walked in, she tried to hide behind her laundry basket, and I said, “Oh, it’s ok, I have a sister.” Naive, I know, but I meant it! Not only was lust not an issue at that time, I had a heart for these girls. I saw them drunk and slutty all the time. I felt sad for them. I tried to witness to some of them. I didn’t see any immediate result but I got them thinking. My armor was working. I was in a place with tremendous temptation, the last place most Christian college guys should be, yet the Lord was with me and protected me.

So, what do you think of ministries like xxchurch? What do you think of people who say they have a ministry to those caught up in (blank) lifestyle? Do we write them off and say, “God would never call someone to a place like that with all that sin.” Do we judge them as carnal and “of the flesh” trying to get their jollies under a spiritual sounding umbrella? Or do we consider the possibility that, like Barney and Saul, they have been called and equipped to go there and preach the gospel?

I’ll end with a nugget from Tom Stipe. He said, “What kind of people become believers? Non-believers. Non-believers are the only kind of people who become believers.” Duh. Shockingly simple, but true. Why didn’t I think of that? Are we so busy trying to keep the believers we have happy, or trying to attract other believers, that we forget about the people we are supposed to be reconciling to God? Have I been doing that? If so, I need to stop being a man pleaser and become a God pleaser. That’s not to say we should tell people in our churches, “Forget you, I’m going after these guys.” Rather, we ought to say, “God is calling us to make disciples. Care to join me?”

When I was at the University of Washington, one of the slogans they tried to grill into the students was, “Valuing diversity.” The concept being that all people ought to value, respect, and honor the cultural diversity that exists in the world and on campus. This concept obviously isnt isolated to UW. Basically, whatever people express as a part of their culture is just fine, and their rights to express those things ought to be protected. It’s a nice concept, but even those who hold to and enforce such a view don’t abide by it.

Take for example the item in the news about the woman in Saudi Arabia who was raped by some 7 men, but was also convicted of a crime under Islamic law for being in the company of a man that was not her relative when this incident happened. From FoxNews.com,

“RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Saudi judiciary on Tuesday defended a court verdict that sentenced a 19-year-old victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she was with an unrelated male when they were attacked.”

This incident sparked some international outrage. Some of our Presidential candidates are now using it as a platform. Before I say what I’m going to say understand that I do think this was horrible. The 200 lashes, the rape, all of it. But, in a world that “values diversity” how can anyone be critical of this? Who are we to judge? On what basis can we claim that this was wrong of the SA government to do? If we are to honor and respect other cultures, if we are not to enforce our views and morality on others, why is it OK to come out and say that this was wrong? Talk about hypocritical.

If people who hold to this view were intellectually honest they would realize this. They say they are standing up for human rights, but what is the objective basis for what are considered rights? Who decides this? Is it the majority who decides what rights a person should have? My concern isn’t with any particular human rights issue, my concern is the process by which one determines these rights. At one time in the not-so-distant past women didn’t have the right to vote. How did this change? With a vote. Black people had far fewer rights that whites. How did that change? A vote. Homosexuality was viewed as an immoral lifestyle. Generally speaking society has accepted it as a moral lifestyle that deserves the same recognition and rights as straight people. How is this changing? With votes of popular opinion and ballots. So what is to stop adult sexual acts with children, or children’s sexual acts with each other from being considered a human right? A vote? But what if in , say, 50 years popular opinion changes and these activities are seen as the rights of people to express? Does that make it right?

The reality is that, just because something is voted in or determined by the powers to be legal or illegal, that doesn’t make the thing right or wrong. It just makes it legal or illegal. So really, it isn’t wrong to steal, it’s just illegal. It isn’t wrong to murder, it’s just illegal. It isn’t wrong to rape, it’s just illegal. Do you feel as uncomfortable reading that as I do writing it? Do you see the problem with it? Inside every human is a sort of innate sense of morality, an absolute sense of right and wrong. Our Creator put that there. It is one of the ways in which we are made in His image.

The logical consequence of relative truth and/or morality is “anything goes.” What those guys in Saudi Arabia did to that girl and what their courts did to that girl isn’t right or wrong, it just is. Terrorists aren’t right or wrong. Some might say, “But there has to be some kind of standard.” I agree. But how do we decide what that standard is? A vote? We are right back to where we started. We need an objective source of truth and morality. We need one enforced upon us. Without it we become like a child that grows up with no training or supervision.

The reality is that there is an outside, objective source of absolute truth and morality. His name is God. Not just any old God, but the one revealed to us in the Bible. The one who created Heaven and Earth by an act of His will out of nothing. There is equality in Him. There is freedom in Him. There is justice in Him. There is love in Him for He is love. There is peace in Him. Everything that the world is looking for is found in Him and can only be found in Him. It’s that “only” part that trips most people up.

The world needs saving. Anyone who says otherwise is either living with their head in the sand of is blindly optimistic. God loves the world. He proved it by sending His Son Jesus to save the world, not condemn it. That was the first time. God is only going to let things go so far before it requires condemnation and judgment. When Jesus comes back the second time it is going to be to set things straight. We need it.

Who are we to judge? No one. Jesus is the righteous judge. I’ll leave it up to Him and go by what He says.

I watched the video podcast from Pastor to Pastor with Oden Fong from a HisChannel broadcast. He and another pastor (whose name escapes me at the moment) were talking about the early days of CC and what they hope to see in the future. That video, along with the Define Church thread over on SMP, brought this to mind. (Is it me, or does the title of this posting sound like a Dr. Seuss poem book?)

Oden said something I had hoped desperately he would say. This won’t be a direct quote but it should convey the thought he put forth. He said that guys who go out and try to do what Chuck did will fail. It isn’t simply a matter of copying what was done back in the day because it wasn’t so much about the “what” as it was about the “Who” and the “why.” The “Who” was/is the Triune Godhead. It was the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. That is what drove Chuck, drove CC. That is what drove the “why” behind what was done and what was not done.

In many corners, including the one I stepped into, the model, the method of style of worship and some form of verse by verse teaching became a liturgy, a tradition. Again, I’m not talking about or criticizing the what. I’m concerned about what happened to the Who and why that was behind the what. The what is almost irrelevant. Almost.

I recently changed the name of our church from “Calvary Chapel Forest Grove” to “The Exchange Church.” The reason I did this is because I believed that our fellowship needed a new identity in our community. I believed this for a variety of reasons. One was the obvious connection between the previous pastor and our church. We were experiencing “Oh that church” syndrome. Another was that most people don’t know what CC is. That works for you and against you. It works for you in that if someone has never heard of CC but they are Christians, it sounds kinda harmless. It works against you in that if someone has never heard of it but they aren’t a Christian, (a) it sounds pretty “churchy” and (2) it must be kinda weird if they have never heard of it. It also works against you if the person has heard of it and heard about all the baggage. Even if they have never experienced any of the baggage, the fact that the baggage exists is enough to warn them off. Yet another reason is that I believed we needed a clean start for ourselves and as much of a clean slate with the community as possible.

The great thing about CC back in the day was that the Who and the why were more important than the what. When the what becomes the focus, you lose the Who and the why. Kind of like when you take the blood away from Jesus, you have a bloodless Jesus. Does a name change such as this mean I am going emergent church? Of course not. This would be an example of the what becoming more important than the Who or the why. It’s that kind of thinking that I’m trying to eliminate in myself as well as our fellowship.

As a pastor, regardless of denomination or affiliation or association, the Who and the why need to be paramount. The what needs to be a natural, organic outgrowth. When we get focused on the what, when we lose the Who and the why, traditionalism creeps in and begins to sterilize. Please, God, help us to not lose sight of the Who and the why.

Today’s entry is a (belated) response to an open letter of sorts from Roger Oakland, the president of Understanding the Times. If you care to read what my particular thoughts are on the topic, it would help if you read his comments, as well as the interview he references with Rob Bell on BeliefeNet.com. Otherwise, a lot of this won’t make too much sense. But then this is me were talking about, right? Here is the blow by blow.

DISCLAIMER: This is in no way intended to be an attack nor a defense of either Roger Oakland or Rob Bell. It is intended to be an attempt to rescue the baby that is being thrown out with the bath water from both houses.

Roger Oakland’s Comments

“There are pastors (including Calvary Chapel pastors) who are promoting Rob Bell’s view that Christianity must be “reinvented for the 21st century.” Rob Bell is one of the prominent leaders of the Emerging Church movement.”

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so interpretation can be in the ear of the listener. If I didn’t know who Rob Bell was and I read that, what would come to my mind that is rooted in solid Biblical doctrine, is the idea of methodology and not theology. I’m all about getting church out of a rut, freed from tradition and “this is the way we’ve always done it.” So to me, reinventing Christianity for the 21st century means to examine our methodology and determine what still communicates, examining if people are living out their faith and not stuck in dead orthodoxy. If I didn’t know who Rob Bell was I’d be like, “Gee, Roger, what’s your deal?” But, as you keep reading, he goes on to explain what this language is intended to communicate.

Oakland describes one of Bell’s major influences.

Ken Wilber was raised in a conservative Christian church, but at some point he left that faith and is now a major proponent of Buddhist mysticism. His book that Bell recommends, A Brief History of Everything, is published by Shambhala Publications, named after the term, which in Buddhism means the mystical abode of spirit beings. Wilber is one of the most respected and highly regarded theoreticians in the New Age movement today.

Yikes! This does not sound like a person who should be having any influence over someone with the title of Pastor. Then, Roger brings out the big guns.

Any pastor (including a Calvary Chapel pastor) who follows and promotes the teachings of Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis – Nooma films etc.), but claims not to be part of the Emerging Church, after reading the following article about Rob Bell, needs to publicly declare whether they are Emerging Church or not. A pastor who follows Rob Bell (who is following Ken WIlber), has the potential to be led away from a Bible based Christianity towards a New Age eastern mysticism that includes contemplative spirituality. This is a perfect example of how a shepherd who is supposed to protect his flock from wolves can become a wolf in sheep’s clothing and become a danger to his own flock and other pastors who follow him or his methods.

Sounds like a challenge to me! However, as I have said in previous posts on this blog and over on SMP, there needs to be a distinction between style and content, between methodology and theology. I think there are probably some good style and execution lessons to be learned from Rob Bell and the EC. I know I would adopt some if I could in the space we rent, but we can’t due to storage limitations and building codes. So let’s look at the BeliefeNet.com article and see what’s up.

The Rob Bell Interview
The title of the article is “‘Velvet Elvis’ Author Encourages Exploration of Doubts.” Remember that interpretation can be in the ear of the listener. At first blush, I have no problem with this title. I love it when new/young believers ask questions and explore doubts that have come up in their walks with the Lord. It’s a learning and teaching opportunity. But there is one essential element: there is nothing wrong with exploring doubts so long as, going into the discussion, one understands that there are answers to the doubts and those answers are found in God’s inerrant and infallible word. The first response to any question or doubt about the faith should always be, “What does God have to say about it?” and you crack open the Bible.

Consider the following keeping in mind that there is a very important semantic issue; what does Bell mean when he uses these words?

Faith in Jesus, Bell says, must be repainted for each generation if it is to avoid the fate of his velvet Elvis. “What often happens in religion is people freeze the faith at a certain point,” Bell says. “There’s no more need to paint. We’ve got the ultimate painting.”

On the contrary, he says — religion, like art, must keep exploring and reforming, or “you end up with a velvet Elvis on your hands.”

“Every generation has to ask difficult questions about what does it mean to follow Jesus. What does the kingdom of God look like as it explodes at this time, in this place?”

On the surface, I can agree with these sentiments. In fact, I think these sentiments could easily be applied to what Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel went through in its early days. The denomination Chuck was a part of was frozen, so he left. When he signed on at Calvary Chapel, it was also frozen. They were Velvet Elvis paintings. So what did Chuck do? He basically asked what it meant for that generation of people to follow Jesus, what does the kingdom of God look like at that time in that place in that culture. His answer was to simply adopt Acts 2:42-47. He used it as a template with which to reinvent the way church was done. And it was a template. It wasn’t a manual that defined every detail as to how to do, but it was a guide as to what to do. The freezing process begins, churches begin to think that they have the ultimate painting, when the how and the what, when the style and content, when the methodology and the theology begin to meld into one. This is what has been happening to the Calvary Chapel movement of churches in my opinion (speaking as a CC affiliated pastor).

Chuck’s template has become the rule of law for many CCs. This has led to many CCs becoming institutions for Bible learning while very few in that fellowship are experiencing or living out a dynamic relationship with Jesus. This, in my humble opinion, is why many people are leaving CCs and other doctrinally solid Bible teaching churches for churches with forms and rituals like Emergent Churches, the Eastern Orthodox church, etc. They want an experience. While one’s relationship with God should not be based on experience, experience is a fruit, a natural byproduct of a relationship. Just like kids who fall in love at summer camp have no real basis for a long-term relationship (generally speaking), people who have some kind of shallow-yet-flashy religious experience have no real basis for a long term relationship with Jesus. But, people who have
a solid marriage continually experience a sense of love for one another and that is evident in their lives. Others can tell that they are experiencing something that it is real. But I digress.

At one point, Bell writes about a personal crisis three or four years ago when he felt burned out. He describes sitting in a storage closet while thousands gathered for the next worship service. “I was moments away from leaving the whole thing,” Bell writes. “I wasn’t even sure I was a Christian anymore.”

I admit that I have been there. But I also know why I’ve been there. I was operating in the power of the flesh and not in the Spirit. My understanding is that Bell comes from a tradition that teaches that the gifts of the Spirit ceased with the Apostles (the view is called cessationism). As a result, being continually Spirit filled as Peter and others were in Acts, doesn’t enter into ones personal relationship with Jesus. Instead, relying on other natural giftings and resources is the norm. At times (plural) I have been where Bell was because I know I wasn’t walking in the Spirit ala Galatians 5:16+. This point isn’t critical to this discussion, it’s more of a side point, but it’s an important one none the less.

Why? Because this is how most ECs function. The Spirit isn’t a person with whom we can have a relationship, He is an “it,” a theological concept that is in the word and is very real of course, but not central. When Jesus says that He is going to send us another Helper that will basically take His place while He isn’t physically on earth, that sounds pretty central and significant to me. Just as Jesus walked and talked and taught the disciples, so the Spirit walks, talks, and teaches us today. He may not be a physical presence with us, but He is with us non the less. This is significant to the concept of this next quote.

“Anybody who’s ever found a disconnect between church and real life will find this book difficult to put down,” says Lyn Cryderman, vice president and publisher of books [for Zondervan].

It should be pointed out that many, if not most, of the objections to mainstream, conservative, fundamentalist churches have a basis in reality. The objections are to extreme examples that are out of balance with scripture. However, the reactions and solutions employed to combat those extreme examples are equally extreme and out of balance with scripture. As I said above, people are bailing on Bible teaching churches for experience. That’s the disconnect between church life and real life Cryderman refers to. Interestingly enough, it seems to me that this disconnect is being encouraged in our schools and secular culture. People are encouraged to keep their spiritual life private and separate from their public lives. In the 2004 Presidential election Sen. John Kerry provided the perfect example of this. He said that, as a Catholic, he personally believed that abortion was wrong, but he wasn’t going to let that interfere with what he viewed as his responsibility to the public in order to protect a woman’s right to chose. Boy am I thankful that men like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didn’t segregate their private and public lives like that.

When you read Acts, especially the first 12 chapters, you can’t help but see that there was no such disconnect. There was no distinction between one’s private life and their public life. Their lives were centered around the apostles teaching and doctrine, prayer, living in community with one another, which was publicly evident to the point that it was the major expression of evangelism. They didn’t have to think about living a missional life, it was second nature. What they experienced in their private lives was being lived out in their public lives through the power and comfort of the Holy Spirit. The compassion of Jesus was expressed in women like Tabitha who made clothes for the poor among them. It was expressed in men like Philip and Stephen who served as food distributors to the widows among them. It was expressed as as in churches helping one another out when aid was needed. They were passing Jesus’ test of love as found in John 13:34-35, “All men will know you are my disciples by your love for one another.” Neither the extreme conservative fundy nor the extreme liberal EC is making converts, let alone disciples. Hmmm.

Cryderman says he has “high expectations” for the book because, unlike most books about Christianity, it encourages readers to question their beliefs and church teachings.

“It’s refreshing to have somebody say, `Go ahead, test it all you want,’ instead of, `There must be something wrong with you because you’ve got some doubts.”‘

Again, on the surface I have no problem with this. Challenge the text, challenge the theology, knowing that God will answer. Be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to see if these things are so. Have confidence that there are answers, there are solutions, there is hope and certainty. But this next statement makes it easy to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Indeed, Bell urges readers to test his own text. The Bible itself, he writes, is a book that constantly must be wrestled with and re-interpreted. He dismisses claims that “Scripture alone” will answer all questions. Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, the reader’s bias and current realities, he says. The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.

Yikes! Stop the train, I want to get off! This is just flat out wrong. The issue isn’t reinterpretation, it’s one of reapplication. The Bible means what it says and says what it means. That never changes. What changes is culture. What changes is the ways in which the Gospel can be expressed and applied. From a pastoral perspective, if one’s Bible interpretation is colored by historical context, bias, and current realities, then one has never learned how to read or study the Bible. That’s Bible interpretation rule numero uno; what did this mean to those people at that time? Once that is understood it can then be transplanted to today and lived out. The statement “The more you study the Bible, the more questions it raises.” is true of any discipline. The more you learn about physics the more questions are raised. Equally true is that there are answers for all of those Bible and faith questions. That’s what God says, “Come, let us reason together.” God wants interaction, He wants dialogue with His people. Anyone in a relationship has to have that.

“It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says,” Bell writes. “We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.”

Again, yikes. If it were not possible to simply do what the Bible says, God would not have told us to do it. God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. What if Abe had sat down and said to himself, “Precious, I have to make a decision about what God meant at this time in this place for me and my son. Surely God doesn’t want me to kill this child that He Himself promised would be the one though whom He would fulfill the rest of His promises”? What if Moses had done the same thing when confronted by the burning bush? What if Jesus had bailed on going through the crucifixion because He made His own subjective decision as to what God really meant?

The point Bell is challenging people with is the same thing Satan challenged Eve with. “Did God really say…? Are you sure that’s what He meant? After all, it isn’t possible to simply do (or not do) what He said. You have to decide for yourself what He meant.” The Biblical reality is that God gives us things to do. In addition, He gives us the resources to accomplish them. The more “impossible” the command sounds, the more one has to trust God, and the more God will be glorified in the end. Case in point is Abraham and Sarah. It was impossible for them to have children at the ages o
f 90 and 100, yet God gave them the ability to do so. That’s what God’s Holy Spirit does for us. God says, “Don’t fulfill the lust of the flesh.” How can I do that? “Walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”

Noting the Bible has been used to defend slavery and mistreat women, he writes, “sometimes when I hear people quote the Bible, I just want to throw up.”

In similarly bold language, Bell tackles questions about Jesus, salvation, the institutional church and religious prejudice.

Bell has a point in that the Bible has been used to defend some of the worst atrocities in history. No question. But that doesn’t mean that the problem was or is with God’s word. The problem was and is people using the Bible to support their views and actions and not to dictate them. The one who is deceived is the one who gets the two things confused. “I want to do this, I have found this scripture and will use it to support what I want to do, therefore the Bible is dictating my actions.” This has become the norm in Bible teaching for many churches. It’s application isn’t restricted to the crusades and slavery. I heard one pastor (whose name escapes me at the moment) teach that, since Jesus surprised people with his teachings, that were are to be spontaneous in how we do church, therefore that’s what the Bible teaches. The reality is that Jesus didn’t sit and think, “Now how can I surprise people today. I know, I will forgive a woman guilty of adultery.” One of the side effects of what He did was surprising to be sure, but that wasn’t the goal. Bell is guilty of the same methodology that he attacks.

“My intent has always been to discover the real Christ and the resurrected Christ, and what (he) is saying to me and to us,” says Bell, 34, with the excited intensity of someone equally at home with a Bible or a skateboard.

My response to that is, how does he know what the real and the resurrected Christ is saying? What is his standard for determining this? If the Bible needs to be constantly reinterpreted, what do we base reality and truth upon? Bell’s, and the answers of others in the EC, are as much like jello as this statement. For an interesting dialog on this issue, head on over the Mike Macon’s blog and read through his exchange with some EC proponents. You might even see a post or two from me over there.

“I think a lot of people are deeply fascinated with Jesus and just can’t do the Christian packages they’ve seen. Christianity is a little suspect, but Jesus, right on. So I’m trying to free Jesus from the religion that’s built up around him.”

Too many churches put Jesus and the Bible into a walled-in worldview where no questions are allowed, Bell says.

Again, there is a kernel of truth in this. The objection has a good basis. I share this objection in fact and have been trying to root out any element of it in the church I pastor and will be vigilant to do so in the future. However…

In this “brickianity,” as he calls it, church doctrines are like bricks. Removing one can bring the whole wall tumbling down.

“What terrifies me are communities that don’t have questions,” Bell says. “If there’s any place where you would express your deepest doubts, it would be church.”

The doctrines of the Bible are not the issue, it’s what people build with them. Again, the separation of style and content, methodology and theology. If one takes the doctrine of inerrancy (there are no errors of history, fact, or science in the Bible) and says “Just shut up and believe it.” that’s wrong. And that is what some do. I agree with Bell in that church should be a place to come and ask the tough questions. But it should also be a place where you can learn the sometimes tough answers that are available, not just revel in the pseudo-wisdom of being a deep thinker, a heavy who seeks the deeper things.

Bell goes on to say…

“They [people] are hungry for the infinite mystery of God and the “revolution” Jesus could make in their lives and the world. He calls for a faith that fights poverty, injustice and suffering — to make “this world the kind of place God can come to.”

This demonstrates a worldview imposed on scripture. Jesus didn’t come to start a movement that would change the world into a place where God can come and establish His kingdom. Our function isn’t to set the stage for Jesus’ return. Should poverty, injustice, and suffering be dealt with? Certainly. But dealing with those things aren’t the primary reason Jesus came nor are they the primary mission of a disciple. The primary mission of a disciple is to make more disciples. The primary mission of Jesus was to reconcile people to God by paying the price for our sin and sin nature so that we can both live for Him here on earth, and live with Him in eternity.

The Bible clearly teaches that the world is going to get worse and worse. That doesn’t free Christians from compassion and concern for the world. It should give us a sense of urgency to reach as many people with the gospel as we can. But it does mean that God is going to come back and institute His own justice. We don’t need to get the world ready for Him to come back to. That’s not His command to us. Our job is to deliver the message, walk with those who receive it, and live it out.

“We want a faith that demands everything of us,” he says. “We want it to shake us up and turn us upside down.”

That’s cool. I’m down with that. After all, Christians were accused of turning the whole world upside down with their doctrine. Yes, doctrine. You know, those bricks in the walls that Bell wants to tear down. But I digress.

Bell also shakes up traditional evangelical beliefs. While calling Christ’s way “the best possible way to live,” Bell writes Jesus did not claim one religion is better than another when he said he was “the way, the truth and the life.” Rather, he writes, “his way is the way to the depth of reality.”

As a follower of Jesus, Bell says, he is free to claim the truth wherever he finds it.

“One of the lies is that truth only resides in this particular community or that particular thought system,” Bell says. “I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it’s true, it belongs to God.”

OK, I’m going to say it. That’s a load of crap. It quite simply contradicts the Bible from cover to cover. It sounds wise. It sounds spiritual. So did Satan in the garden. At least Bell is consistent. He is reinterpreting. It’s like Bell is saying, “The label on the can of paint says ‘blue’ but really it’s red.” It just isn’t. Undoubtedly this is what Mr. Oakland objects to, and I do too.

I encourage people to ask questions because there are answers. I would burn candles if I were allowed to. I might even put the Bible study before worship during the service once in a while (gasp!). But I’m not an EC. I am interested in breaking Jesus, the Bible, and doctrines out of the mold of moldy tradition (methodology), even if that tradition comes from the hay days of CC, but I’m not an EC. To be sure the EC is messed up theologically, but they are connecting with the culture. I can learn from that without becoming that. They are doing what Paul was doing in Acts 17 much better than many solid Bible teaching churches, better than my church is doing. I can learn from that without becoming that.

Mr. Bell, I think you are horribly, horribly wrong and are leading people into deception. You are sincere and mean no harm, but you are sincerely wrong. But I do admire your ability to connect with people. Mr. Oakland, I think you are right to sound the alarm on the
se vital issues. You are also sincere and desire people to walk in truth. Hopefully the people you tick off will walk away and think about what you say and not just walk away. Lord knows plenty of people (who were very wrong) have said things that ticked me off, but they did get me thinking, and in the end I was more confident in what I believed. The why in what we believe is as important as the what.

So to answer the challenge; yes I am a CC pastor, no I’m not an EC. OK. I got that out of my system. Next!