Archive for July, 2007
“A Little Leaven” Reports: “Me-centered Church”
Posted by clearly in others who see clearly on July 25, 2007
Chris Rosebrough reports that a certain “pastor” says something like this in regards to finding a new church: “If the service is longer than 71 minutes, you probably should find another church.”
Who’s focusing on the superficial and peripheral now? Certainly not those rigid fundamentalists…
P.S. Velvet Elvis (movement 3)
Posted by clearly in emergent, rob bell, seeing error clearly, velvet elvis on July 24, 2007
—MUSIC—
Rob writes,
It is possible for music to be labeled Christian and be terrible music.
When I first read that phrase, I agreed — that is, until I read what came next.
He continues,
It could lack creativity and inspiration. The lyrics could be recycled cliches. That “Christian” band could actually be giving Jesus a bad name because they aren’t a great band. Read the rest of this entry »
Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (movement 3)
Posted by clearly in emergent, rob bell, seeing error clearly, velvet elvis on July 24, 2007
Rob warns the readers,
“Do that to this book. Don’t swallow it uncritically. Think about it. Wrestle with it. Just because I’m a Christian and I’m trying to articulate a Christian worldview, doesn’t mean I’ve got it nailed.”
However, I think Rob really did nail the following:
“Just because it is a Christian book by a Christian author and it was purchased in a Christian bookstore doesn’t mean it’s all true or good or beautiful.”
Ironically, I couldn’t agree more! However, in Rob’s eyes it would be just as probable for me to find a good Christian book in a Hindu bookstore than in a Christian one — to Rob, being a Christian is all about embracing truth wherever we find it. Read the rest of this entry »
Rob Bell and Hell, ooze interview
Posted by clearly in emergent, rob bell, seeing error clearly on July 22, 2007
The Dialogue…
You recently preached a sermon called “God wants to save Christians from hell.” I was discussing the message with a guy who after hearing this message was a bit disturbed and somehow came to the conclusion that you didn’t believe in a literal hell. Let me ask you, do you believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from God?
Rob: Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I would assume that God will leave room for people to say “no I don’t want any part of this.” My question would be, does grace win or is the human heart stronger than God’s love or grace. Who wins, does darkness and sin and hardness of heart win or does God’s love and grace win? Read the rest of this entry »
A Look at John 3: Regeneration and the Kingdom
Posted by clearly in daily_thought, theology on July 21, 2007
Jesus tells Nicodemus (3:3),
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Read the rest of this entry »
courage…
Posted by clearly in daily_thought on July 17, 2007
What is godly courage? Whatever it is, we know from reading Scripture that we need it — we need courage to live out gospel truths. Let’s face it, we are Americans and we tend to embrace a really shallow understanding of courage. We often view courage like this:
Courage means that I can follow and obey God because He would never allow anything bad to happen to me.
or
Courage means that I can follow and obey God because life will be easier for me. Read the rest of this entry »
Dr. MacArthur on McLaren…
Posted by clearly in others who see clearly on July 17, 2007
Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries brings this story which includes an audio interview of Dr. John MacArthur.
Brian McLaren continues to attack the body of Christ by infusing toxic venom into her bloodstream. After being asked a simple question concerning eternal destinations, McLaren responds,
“I have a problem with people asking me this question, because it assumes that the primary reason of Jesus coming and the primary message of Jesus was a message of how to get to heaven.“
Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (movement 2)
Posted by clearly in emergent, rob bell, seeing error clearly, velvet elvis on July 15, 2007
The second “movement” is one of the most dangerous things I have read in a long time — the subject: biblical authority and hermeneutics. I believe that Rob really misses the mark on this very important topic. Because many of the problems are subtle, many will read this review and think, “That’s no big deal!” Others will understand the gravity of what he is trying to communicate.
Rob repeatedly gives reference (in the endnotes) to a particular document entitled, “How Can the Bible be Authoritative?”, which was written by NT Wright (also an advocate and researcher for the so called “new perspective” on Paul). The transcript is available here. Rob says concerning this document that it is the
“best thing I have ever read about the Bible” (184)
On the gospel…
Posted by clearly in daily_thought on July 14, 2007
I was talking about the gospel with a couple of young pastors the other day. Here’s some rough thoughts.
If the spreading the gospel were merely handing out meals at a soup kitchen or merely providing shelter for the homeless and afflicted, if the gospel were merely about clothing the naked, if the gospel were simply about freeing the financially oppressed, then what would necessitate Paul’s words in Romans 1:16?
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
If the gospel were merely all about relieving societal and financial pressures for people, then Paul and all believers of all times would have nothing whereof to be ashamed. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor. 1) — unregenerate Gentiles have no problems giving to charities and setting up foundations, etc. Also, it would by all means not be a stumblingblock to the Jews (1 Cor. 1); they were already required to give to the poor!
Paul addresses this issue because the gospel is first and foremost a powerful, life-changing message — one of good news. It is the message of Christ crucified and risen again from the dead — the message that Jesus Christ became sin for us, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. It’s a message of God’s love for the world — that whosoever believes in him, should not perish but have everlasting life. It’s the message of the cross that is offensive___
try to see it clearly
Hollywood and God…Ray Comfort
Posted by clearly in others who see clearly on July 12, 2007
I saw this piece over at Slice of Laodicea. Ingrid links to a new Ray Comfort clip in which Ray asks professing Christians about movies and blasphemy. Take 5-6 minutes, watch this clip, and then be ready to be very convicted.
Live as a heavenly citizen!
Posted by clearly in daily_thought, theology on July 11, 2007
I recently saw Philippians 1:27 cited in several blog posts — which of course got me thinking. The verse reads:
Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ…
The phrase “let your conversation” is a translation of the Greek imperative πολιτευεσθε, which means to live as a citizen (from where we get our word politics). In our present day culture, the word “conversation” really doesn’t capture the original meaning appropriately. Consider my translation of the first part of the verse… Read the rest of this entry »
McLaren: “hell sucks?”
Posted by clearly in Uncategorized on July 11, 2007
Christian Research Network quotes Brian McLaren:
“Tony [Campolo] and I might disagree on the details, but I think we are both trying to find an alternative to both traditional Universalism and the narrow, exclusivist understanding of hell [that unless you explicitly accept and follow Jesus, you are excluded from eternal life with God and destined for hell].”
An alternative to the exclusivity of Christ? I’m thinking Galatians 1:6-9…
Critique: Rob Bell…Velvet Elvis (movement 1)
Posted by clearly in emergent, rob bell, seeing error clearly, velvet elvis on July 10, 2007
It is not my intention to rip Rob’s words out of context. It is my aim to be Scriptural, coherent, and logical. Although I am passionate about the truth of Scripture, I will not allow my emotions to go on an anathematizing rampage; I expect the same from any who wish to comment.
The Good.
“It’s possible to believe all the right things and be miserable (page 35).”
So true, Rob. Thanks for the reminder.
Now for the The Bad
ONE —- While speaking of the words of Jesus in John 14:6, which reads:
I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me
Rob says,
“Jesus at one point claimed to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life.’ Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way Read the rest of this entry »
Titus, focus on doctrine…
Posted by clearly in daily_thought, others who see clearly, theology on July 7, 2007
How would you like to try to solve church problems among perpetual liars, evil beasts, and continuous gluttons? It probably wouldn’t be the first choice that comes to my mind when contemplating future ministry. But let’s face it — God has not called us to simply teach the taught — to gospel the gospel-ed — to train the trained. The task of Titus was daunting discipleship and church organization among a shameful people — his strategy, as delineated to him by Paul, was founded upon a deep trust for God, his Scripture, and the sound doctrine which flows thereafter.
Paul uses the word, “doctrine” at least four times in his short letter to Titus. I would like to highlight the first one in this post.
First usage: 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Anyone have some soap for Tony’s mouth?
Posted by clearly in emergent, others who see clearly on July 7, 2007
I can’t believe I missed this post over at Apprising Ministries. The national coordinator for the Emergent church is apparently having troubles with orthopraxy (proper practice). Apparently, TJ dropped the infamous f-bomb in reference to the Bible.
“The Bible is an ______ing scary book.”
Does anyone see it ironic that the man who insists that orthodoxy (right doctrine) is identical with orthopraxy (right practice), can’t seem to get either straight?
