|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 5:30:27 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
Now, I appreciate what he is saying because each time I read Scripture I am hit with a truth that I didn’t see before. Yet, I disagree with his attitude, his disdain of doctrinal truths or passages of Scripture that we can be certain about.
I would agree with this, except for the fact that there has never been a theologian that I felt got it 100% accurate. If certainty on EVERYTHING were possible, then we wouldn't have the divisions that we do. And it's not just the divisions that I'm talking about. Certainty on some doctrines is possible. Certainty on some others, well I have my doubts.
Here's my best example: baptism.
Now, I attend a reformed church. We view baptism as a sacrament symbolizing God's movement toward us, promised from the begining of time. I used to go to a baptist church. For them, the sacrament was more about one's personal decision for Christ. My current church sprinkles, but I love the imagery of a good old fashioned dunking.
Nowadays, I can't call myself either baptist or reformed. I'm BapFormed. I like elements of each, but the totality of neither. And it's not that either of them aren't correct. I think they both reflect incomplete understanding of the issue. As a result, I don't think on this particular issue that I'm going to approach baptism and the doctrines surrounding it with anything with very much like certainty. But that's different from having a disdain for either position. I don't have a disdain for doctrine - just not as tight a grip on it as I might have had earlier in my Christian life before I had a more mature understanding of some of the issues involved.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 5:40:29 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
Rob Bell’s second movement reveals that he has bought fully into satan’s twisted view of language. I will provide Rob Bell quotes later to show this.
If his view of language is so twisted, why do it's problems keep cropping up in my marriage. My wife and I are both serious geeks. We talk about any number of complex issues. Once in a while, we get into some heated exchanges. The funny thing is that most of the time, the heated exchanges turn out to misunderstandings related to the usage of language. Usually I've used a word that for me carries a certain nuance, but that nuance is lost on her and we begin to argue.
Pick any one word, and it will come loaded with a basket of meanings. Some words are more loaded than others. Pick the word "democrat" for example. The images that word brings to mind are radically different for some than others. For some, it's hugely pejorative. For others, it's a warm and fuzzy word.
Language works because within the basket of meanings that any one word has, most of them are commonly held. Language occasionally fails to work because we stumble upon circumstances where one party or another brings to the table some meaning that ISN'T held in common.
I tend to think that language - as we humans use it - was damaged as a result of The Fall. Nothing we do is perfect. Not even the language that we use.
I think a limited theory indeterminacy of language, for that reason, is not of the devil. The damage done to language is of the devil. Some degree of indeterminacy however is a fact, and a very biblical one.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 5:43:36 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
GroupW,
Who exactly emphasises right-thinking over right-doing?
I'd answer, but JayVance beat me to it and did a better job than I would have. I'm not ignoring your question - he just did a better job of answering it than I would have.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 5:49:36 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4467
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Only that we are incapable of approaching the bible without bias.
However, this does not take away from the truth of God's Word, and our ability with the help of the Holy Spirit to comprehend that truth and embrace it and have it change us.
The deconstructionism mindset removes the confidence we can have in God.
quote:
If you look at some of the post-modern philosophers, their standpoint is similar. It's not that there is no objective truth. It's just that there are no objective practitioners of truth.
This is my point. The post-modern philosophers are rooted in deconstructionism. The deconstructionism that began with the language brainiacs branched out into all areas of study, including history and theology. Suddenly all text is to be questioned, because if I read the text with bias, and the text is written with bias, then the truth of the text is unreliable.
If God's Word is unreliable, if it is utterly clouded by bias, then truth is ambiguous. This IS the post-modern mindset.
quote:
One - skepticism. Be like the Bereans and test all things.
Two - context. Don't interpret the bible in a vacuum. Take account of the historical context. Be aware that you bring a certain context to the table as well, and know that this will bias your interpretation. Be honest about that so you can deal with it and avoid making stupid mistakes.
Three - community. Don't interpret like a lone wolf. Do it from within community and so be accountable for your interpretations. Let other people's biases inform your own. Don't be a idiot - listen to folks that might know something.
The Bereans tested all things against Scripture, not against the culture.
Community cannot be the benchmark, because community can lie. Mormons study the Bible in their community, interpret it in their community, and define it within their community. They are flat wrong.
(And I find it fascinating that Bell has at least partially removed himself from much of the Christian community.)
Another major concern I have with Bell is that thus far, he has not emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in either the writing of the Bible or in the work the Holy Spirit does to help us understand the Bible.
The Bible was written after the fall--does this make it indeterminate, flawed, mistaken? Or is it true and reliable? Not just kind of true, not just true in its concepts, but truth? If it is flawed, which parts? Which parts can I rely on, and which parts can I decide are improper representations of what God intended?
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 5:54:33 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4467
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I would agree with this, except for the fact that there has never been a theologian that I felt got it 100% accurate.
I didn't say that we can be 100% accurate on all things. I think I've been clear that there are some bricks that are liberty issues or are non-salvific, and there are definitely things in Scripture we don't fully understand.
But certainly, within the Body of Christ, we have a clear confidence and certain understanding of the core essential truths. Paul, Steven, Philip, etc. all spent a great deal of time defending the faith with right doctrine. We are encouraged to do the same, so that we might preach Christ boldly. How can I preach boldly that which I am uncertain about?
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 6:01:35 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
I don't think my perspective on language (which agrees with Bell's) has removed my confidence in God at all. If anything, it's increased my reliance on the spirit. Knowing that I'm a hopelessly biased interpreter, I need to be humble in the presence of his word and subject myself to some serious scrutiny. As I rely on God more, I gain in confidence not lose.
I don't think it makes us trust God less. If anything, it forces us to trust him more.
As far as the word of God being biased, I think you misunderstand. The word was written in a certain place and time. In order to understand the word properly, we need to understand the historical context. That's just good scholarship. It's my own bias in approaching this word that I need to be aware of. The truth of God stands. The truth of God as I read it, interpret it, and try to teach it in my human self - well, that part needs to be tested continuously. I'm not perfect, neither are my interpretations. Now, if you choose to disagree with that last sentence, I'll allow it. 
As far as the comment on interpreting from within a community goes - well obviously community isn't perfect. It's a good safeguard, certainly, but not failsafe. I think that's his point - it's helpful. That's one reason I think Paul asked us not to forsake gathering together. He wouldn't have commanded it if it weren't useful.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 6:04:14 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
quote:
If his view of language is so twisted, why do it's problems keep cropping up in my marriage.
Ha--clearly you both need the same version of the Oxford Dictionary.
We tried that - it didn't help. Unfortunately, even the Oxford gives multiple meanings for individual words. And we wonder why foreign languages are so hard to learn. I can't even get English right, and I've been using it for almost 50 years.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 6:24:34 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2913
Joined: 11/16/2007
From: Up in the hills of Colorado (very BIG hills...)
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crankius
quote:
I would agree with this, except for the fact that there has never been a theologian that I felt got it 100% accurate.
I didn't say that we can be 100% accurate on all things. I think I've been clear that there are some bricks that are liberty issues or are non-salvific, and there are definitely things in Scripture we don't fully understand.
But certainly, within the Body of Christ, we have a clear confidence and certain understanding of the core essential truths. Paul, Steven, Philip, etc. all spent a great deal of time defending the faith with right doctrine. We are encouraged to do the same, so that we might preach Christ boldly. How can I preach boldly that which I am uncertain about?
I understand, but isn't it also fair to say that while we have a (mostly) clear understanding of salvation related things, that our "clear" understanding isn't necessarily complete? Does anyone really fully get how the mechanics of "propitiatory sacrifice" really work? Frankly, find me someone that thinks he's got the complete and unadulterated explanation for that mystery, and I'll call him a liar to his face, even if it's the pope himself.
Sure, I know what I need to know - God promises me that much.
But maybe there are aspects to salvation that I've not considered. Maybe God has told me all I need to know, but not necessarily all there is to know. After all - that's part of the lesson with the book of Job. There are some things I'm not supposed to know - yet.
The doctrines surrounding salvation have not been completely stable from day one. It's taken some time to dissect the mystery and wrap some words around it. We've developed a certain understanding over time, but even among the various denominations, the understanding hasn't been completely uniform in every aspect. Ask a Greek Orthodox person to explain it, and he'll use slightly different imagery and logic. Is he wrong? Maybe a little, but maybe he's also got some kernel of truth that I've missed. Maybe that something that I've missed can be added into the core of what I was taught as a baptist in order to add some color and depth?
Even among the essentials of the faith, there can be some slightly different flavors - how exactly does Christ's sacrifice pay for our sins? Why is the Father satisfied with that? I've seen a lot of imagery to explain it, but none of them seem to capture the mystery of it all.
While we don't understand the mystery completely (it wouldn't be mystery, then, would it?) I know enough of it to preach if boldly. Certainty, in terms of a complete knowledge, is overrated. It's enough to have a sufficient knowledge. It's all we're promised.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 6:45:02 PM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: P31W
quote:
We comfort ourselves with the knowledge that our doctrine is pure, but we'd rather not think about whether or not our communities would in any way feel the loss if our churches suddenly disappeared from our neighborhoods.
You are kidding yourself if you don't believe the community would feel the impact of the church disappearing from our communities.
Do you have any idea how much the social agencies in this country work with and depend upon the Chruch?
From orphanages, to food banks, soup kitchens, hospitals, Salvation Army shelters and stores, to food for katrina victoms given out under the "name" Amerian Red Cross. I don't believe you have a clue how much Churches give to this country. It was the Chruches who came to the real rescue for the Katrina folks.
Dude, you gotta actually read what I write! 
First of all, I didn't say "the Church" I said "our churches." Big difference, or at least it CAN be a big difference. Secondly, I said we'd rather not ASK ourselves WHETHER OR NOT it would make any difference to our communities if our churches disappeared. There are many, many churches all over this country that are doing little or nothing to impact their neighborhoods. Their mindset is "if people want to know the truth, they know where we are." These churches don't have any kind of active spiritual outreach, formal or otherwise, nor do they attempt to meet the felt needs of the community as a way to engage the culture and open the door to sharing the Gospel. And if they disappeared overnight nobody who doesn't go there (and probably even some who do) would care in the least.
But by golly their doctrine is right.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 7:34:23 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4467
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But by golly their doctrine is right.
Then it can certainly be argued that their doctrine is NOT right.
They are lacking in "...the teaching which accords with godliness." (1 Tim 6:3)
And, they are lacking in the "...acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness." (Titus 1:1)
Right doctrine, by consequence, brings godliness.
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 7:35:04 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
“The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don’t is the ultimate in arrogance. .” p. 54
Crankius,'
Isn't this arrogant approach exactly what Bell is doing by teaching about and from the Bible in the section you are quoting? Isn't he telling us that he's got it right and anyone that disagrees is...what's the phrase he uses over and over again...oh yeah! "It's just not true." So anyone that disagrees is plain wrong.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 7:41:03 PM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 907
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
does this thread being open, suggest that "rob bell" isn't emerging/emergent? after all, other threads have been shut down to divert such discussions to the existing thread...
lol
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 7:59:32 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GroupW
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
GroupW,
Who exactly emphasises right-thinking over right-doing?
I'd answer, but JayVance beat me to it and did a better job than I would have. I'm not ignoring your question - he just did a better job of answering it than I would have.
so you would agree with McLaren and others that evangelicals are more concerned with exclusionary doctrine, and not concerned with loving their neighbors? Or the quote in Gibbs and Bolgers "The Emerging Church" that claims evangelical christianity has done nothing good for the world? What about the millions upon millions of Christians that daily show love to their neighbors, co-workers, strangers? The untold masses of christians who support and serve in rescue missions, food-pantries, addiction rehab programs, disaster relief (when the Red Cross says they served x numbers of meals the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief agency that is staffed by volunteers taking unpaid time off of work and paying their own way to the disaster sight are usually responsible for cooking approximately 95% of those meals), orphanages, famine relief around the world? Are these people examples of the significantly large percent of those more concerned with doctrine than practice?
Remember it all starts with doctrine, which really means teaching. Even the Gospel message is a doctrinal one. "How can they believe without first hearing..." The message they hear is the exposition of truth (doctrine). Doctrine is important, essential, indespensible for Christ-like living. It wouldn't be if God had not given us the "Word," for the Spirit who causes us to desire to do God's will could just speak the truth to us. But as we know, He chooses to use the Scripture to teach. I personally have never met a Christian that didn't teach the need for a changed life. After all, that change is inherent in the term repentence. So I guess I don't see the value in slandering the countless millions of faithful, yet imperfect, followers of Christ. Nor do I see the value in slandering their Lord, which is what is done when His people are slanderred. No, I just don't see the value of doing any of that just to promote a different kind of Christianity.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 8:22:24 PM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
These churches don't have any kind of active spiritual outreach, formal or otherwise, nor do they attempt to meet the felt needs of the community as a way to engage the culture and open the door to sharing the Gospel. And if they disappeared overnight nobody who doesn't go there (and probably even some who do) would care in the least.
jayvance,
The early church in Jerusalem didn't have much, if any, formal spiritual outreach. Once in while they would send a delegation to check out what was going on when people in a new area began responding to the Gospel, but for the most part their spiritual outreach was limited to people living their faith.
I heard a story once about an evangelist who was excited to visit the church of a popular pastor and hear one his legendary sermons. That Sunday morning the pastor stood up, went over to the pulpit, and promptly began reading from the budget report. The evangelist thought that they must be finishing up some business and then the pastor would begin his sermon. But when he finished reading the report the pastor gave the invitation. Hundreds of people made their way to the front of the church. Afterwards, the evangelist was driving back to his hotel, feeling a little disappointed about not hearing a sermon and wondering what just happened, when God opened his eyes and showed him that the people who went forward went to church that morning prepared make a public profession of their faith in Christ. The reason that church was so large wasn't because of the pastor's preaching, but because the people in the pews are out sharing their faith.
A church doesn't need a formal outreach, a church only needs the people in the pews to be reaching out! It seems presumptive to suggest that many churches don't have anyone doing that at all.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/20/2008 8:47:16 PM
|
|
|
crankius
Posts: 4467
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
“The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don’t is the ultimate in arrogance. .” p. 54
Crankius,'
Isn't this arrogant approach exactly what Bell is doing by teaching about and from the Bible in the section you are quoting? Isn't he telling us that he's got it right and anyone that disagrees is...what's the phrase he uses over and over again...oh yeah! "It's just not true." So anyone that disagrees is plain wrong.
Yes! Good point.
quote:
“For example, the book of Deuteronomy is patterned after treaties that were common in its day. The writer essentially took a common legal document and changed the content and the names but kept the form the same.” p. 64
I believe Bell is letting his fascination with cultural context blind out the value and power of God’s Word.
Jesus quoted Deuteronomy to Satan. Was Jesus thinking, “Oh, I’ll just thwart off Satan with these rules taken from the treatise in Deuteronomy? Legal documents always confuse Satan.”
It is more likely that Jesus, being God, knows the power of God’s Words and chose to use them as the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God”. (Eph 6:17).
While the Bible is beautiful and stylish and historical, we must always keep in mind that it is filled with God’s Words. Bell's comments on pages 64-66 indicate he thinks otherwise.
Another quote that struck me: “The writers of the Bible had agendas.” p. 66
_____________________________
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself?
Ecclesiastes 7:16
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/21/2008 1:05:27 AM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
A church doesn't need a formal outreach, a church only needs the people in the pews to be reaching out!
Totally agree.
quote:
It seems presumptive to suggest that many churches don't have anyone doing that at all.
Totally disagree. As they say in sports, look at the scoreboard. If most Christians and most Christian churches WERE in fact actively sharing the Gospel in a relevant way and impacting their communities in practical ways, the Christian church would not be in the decline it's in, plain and simple. If you don't think the American church overall is in decline, then I guess there's no use continuing this discussion.
BTW, I'm not "slandering" Christians who ARE sharing their faith actively, since those folks wouldn't fall into the category of those who AREN'T sharing their faith, which is the category of people I was describing.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/21/2008 3:05:12 AM
|
|
|
jayvance
Posts: 58
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
so you would agree with McLaren and others that evangelicals are more concerned with exclusionary doctrine, and not concerned with loving their neighbors?
MANY evangelicals are MORE concerned with exclusionary doctrine THAN they are concerned with loving their neighbors, absolutely. The state of the church in America overall is clear proof of that.
quote:
Or the quote in Gibbs and Bolgers "The Emerging Church" that claims evangelical christianity has done nothing good for the world?
Don't know who these people are, but clearly that's a ridiculous statement for them to make.
quote:
What about the millions upon millions of Christians that daily show love to their neighbors, co-workers, strangers? The untold masses of christians who support and serve in rescue missions, food-pantries, addiction rehab programs, disaster relief (when the Red Cross says they served x numbers of meals the Southern Baptist Disaster Relief agency that is staffed by volunteers taking unpaid time off of work and paying their own way to the disaster sight are usually responsible for cooking approximately 95% of those meals), orphanages, famine relief around the world? Are these people examples of the significantly large percent of those more concerned with doctrine than practice?
Clearly they are not. However, if you want to use the SBC as an example, MANY SBC churches are in decline or stagnant because they are clinging to a decades-old "fortress" mentality that basically says it's us against them, but if them wants to be saved, they can come to us.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"
quote:
So I guess I don't see the value in slandering the countless millions of faithful, yet imperfect, followers of Christ. Nor do I see the value in slandering their Lord, which is what is done when His people are slanderred. No, I just don't see the value of doing any of that just to promote a different kind of Christianity.
Those who are sharing the love of Christ on a regular basis and having a measurable impact on their communities clearly don't fall into the category of those who AREN'T doing those things! If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. No one is being slandered. Pointing out that the American church OVERALL is in decline in no way negates the efforts of INDIVIDUAL Christians and churches which are NOT in decline--but the reverse is also true.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/21/2008 7:53:15 AM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you can't separate a Buddhist culture from a Buddhist religion, we are at an impasse on this one and it's time to move on.
Then we are. I have explained my myself as best I can, and I think I have done so well. Religion may be a part of a culture, but we cannot talk about a religious culture outside of the religion itself. So for McLaren to say that there are Christians who should stay in their Buddhist culture to tantamount to saying that those Christians should stay Buddhists, and continue Buddhist religious practices, which are contrary to biblical faith.
quote:
There is a cultural understanding of a religion, and there is the faithful practice of it.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you want to contend that Christians should practice Buddhism but only in fake sense.
quote:
The Pharisees did not consider themselves above culture - they considered themselves guardians of it. There's a difference.
And they were more out-of-touch with the culture then they realized. No, they come off as being more concerned about their own righteousness then the culture around them.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/21/2008 8:06:54 AM
|
|
|
jazzact13
Posts: 488
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
If most Christians and most Christian churches WERE in fact actively sharing the Gospel in a relevant way and impacting their communities in practical ways, the Christian church would not be in the decline it's in, plain and simple.
You may be right. It would probably have been forced underground long ago because of the persecutions brought on it by the world.
quote:
If you don't think the American church overall is in decline, then I guess there's no use continuing this discussion.
I agree it's in decline. When all too many of them back things like gay marriage, then yes the church is in serious decline.
I am reluctant, however, to say that a decline in numbers equals the decline you are talking about. A church may lose numbers for good reasons as well as bad.
_____________________________
there is no justice in the rhetoric of class hatred
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Rob Bell - 8/21/2008 8:53:40 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 3005
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
Someone with a copy of the Velvet Elvis.
Beside just sending his readers to Marcus Borg does he not also send them to Ken Wilber? Look at the notes. If I remember he told the reader to set aside "3 months" to read that book. I think the title of the book was "A History of Everything" or something like that.
If anyone does not know who Ken Wilber is here is his bio.
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,[1] although his writings are critical of much of the New Age movement.[2] 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.[3]
While Wilber has practiced Buddhist meditation methods and the teachings of Madhyamika Buddhism and of Nagarjuna in particular underpin his work,[4] Wilber does not self-identify as a Buddhist.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
(I could be wrong about this so please someone with the book check the footnotes/endnotes for me I think that is where he oftentimes gives us some "real in your face" clues about what he believes and whose works he respects)
If I am correct why would a Christian 'pastor" called to preach the word encourage anyone Tom, Jose or Mohammod who was reading his book to go read Borg and Wilber too? What is his goal?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
